Because we start from 0. We must move forward with a moral system of some sort. It's kind of like when your parents leave and forgot to say who is in charge of you and your similarly aged sibling. You and your sibling know, neither have the right to tell the other what to do. You both know, through basic logic, both of you have the right to do whatever you want and each will face the consequenses of their choices.

"Allowing" me to live is not an active thing you must do. You are not compelled by my right to live to DO anything, simply to refrain from violating my right.

GQaggie said:

---

Imagine Germany wins WWII. Once all formidable foes have been destroyed, they then go on to kill all people who disagree with their ideology. All accounted for existing people now believe in the superiority of the Aryan race and believe that it is right to kill Jews, should anymore be found to exist. Do these tenets now form a legitimate new morality? Have right and wrong changed since the agreed upon standards are now vastly different than they were prior to the war? Can one society actually even judge the morality of another society that existed in a different place and time in any meaningful way?

of people, including atheists find this view to be inconsistent with their internal experience.

---

This is the nature of our reality. There is no objective morality, and even if there was we don't have any way to objectively access it. Subjectivity is what exists. You need not godwin, look at nearly every culture throughout history and you see morality that you would find objectionable as commonplace, enforced by the powers that be at the time. Morality absolutely evolves. So we judge the past with the same subjectivity that they judged themselves. Only through reason can we try to avail our views.

And, to the point, it doesn't even matter if hitler wins and there world is full of people who reject objective morality or not. He's in conctrol and what he says will go. People will resist if they disagree with his morality whether it's objective or not. There is not practical difference, you are just telling yourself I've finally got more than my own reason supporting my moral thoughts, god agrees with me too. What does that opinion buy you?

Quote:

---

There is something in me and, I suspect, you that screams, "No!" to the first two questions. I absolutely believe it would still be wrong even if no existing person held that same belief.

---

It would be wrong to us. The universe has no morals, that's why it's so important that we do. Your beliefs are formed through your experience, your culture and your reasoning, you aren't likely to abandon them as they are strongly held. But they are not objective. You cannot prove them.

Quote:

---

I am as sure about the wrongness of that as I am that the sky is blue, chocolate tastes good, and roses smell nice. That intuition seems as strong, natural, and reliable as any of my physical senses.

---

Exactly. And these are all absolutely subjective (except for the sky being blue most the time when examined in the visual spectrum). Some people hate chocolate, some think roses smell meh. You aren't wrong for thinking these things, but you don't get to think them for other people or pretend the universe conforms to your will.

Quote:

---

If I axiomatically accept that the physical world objectively exists as a result of my empirical experience through my physical senses, why would I be any less justified in believing that objective morality exists as a result of my experience through this innate intuition.

---

Because that's a terrible axiom. Those should be limited as much as can be, the existence of a universe is a baseline thing. Believing in objective morality as an axiom is no different than believing in Thor as an axiom.

Quote:

---

It seems your subjective morality makes "good" and "evil" just emotionally charged words for "not taboo" and "taboo." The serial rapist is not objectively worse than the upstanding citizen. Society merely prefers him less. I realize that an unbeliever must hold to this subjective nature of morality to remain consistent with his worldview, but I believe the vast majority

---

There is no objective moral standard. Even theists, even ones in the same sect disagree on what's moral. If there is agreement morals are enforceable. This is the world you live in, you may be uncomfortable with that reality but it doesn't change it. We decide right and wrong, and so we must be wise in doing so. Pretending god agrees doesn't change the fact that we decide right and wrong. You cannot look at the whole of human civilization and fail to see the constant change of morality from place to place and time to time.

Quote:

---

This is the nature of our reality. There is no objective morality, and even if there was we don't have any way to objectively access it. Subjectivity is what exists. You need not godwin, look at nearly every culture throughout history and you see morality that you would find objectionable as commonplace, enforced by the powers that be at the time. Morality absolutely evolves. So we judge the past with the same subjectivity that they judged themselves. Only through reason can we try to avail our views.

And, to the point, it doesn't even matter if hitler wins and there world is full of people who reject objective morality or not. He's in conctrol and what he says will go. People will resist if they disagree with his morality whether it's objective or not. There is not practical difference, you are just telling yourself I've finally got more than my own reason supporting my moral thoughts, god agrees with me too. What does that opinion buy you?

---

I agree that we could find morally objectionable practices in most any culture. I think, however, that we would find many, if not most, of these objections would not involve the moral principle itself, but rather the application of the principle. For instance, in any justification for chattel slavery I have heard, the argument has not been that it is ok to own another human. It has been that the owned were somehow subhuman. Furthermore, I'm not at all sure that an evolving set of ideals on morality is evidence against an objective moral reality. Our knowledge of the physical universe has evolved, yet we would not say that evolution corresponds to changes in the reality of the objective physical universe. We would say our understanding is more aligned with the objective reality. Why should I expect morality to be different?

Quote:

---

It would be wrong to us. The universe has no morals, that's why it's so important that we do. Your beliefs are formed through your experience, your culture and your reasoning, you aren't likely to abandon them as they are strongly held. But they are not objective. You cannot prove them.

---

Neither can I prove the existence of the physical world beyond the existence of my own mind.

Quote:

---

Exactly. And these are all absolutely subjective (except for the sky being blue most the time when examined in the visual spectrum). Some people hate chocolate, some think roses smell meh. You aren't wrong for thinking these things, but you don't get to think them for other people or pretend the universe conforms to your will.

---

This was sloppy language on my part and obscured my point. It would have been better had I removed the subjective words and said "the sky is blue, chocolate has a taste, and roses have a smell." However, even removing the subjective language, it remains a fact that my individual experience of these things will have a subjective component, as does any personal experience. When I experience these things, I am subjectively experiencing an objective reality. My point was that I trust the reality of these things based on my experience via the senses. Why is it any less reasonable to believe I am subjectively experiencing an objective morality via my internal sense of morality?

Quote:

---

Because that's a terrible axiom. Those should be limited as much as can be, the existence of a universe is a baseline thing. Believing in objective morality as an axiom is no different than believing in Thor as an axiom.

---

Why is acceptance of our physical reality as we perceive it a reasonable baseline? Why not think that I am a brain in a vat? We trust our physical senses because we have no compelling reason to not do so. In other words, absent a true defeater belief, I am perfectly rational to believe that my senses are giving me a reasonably accurate depiction of my external reality. What is the defeater belief that would prevent me from viewing my moral sense in the same way? Belief in Thor as an axiom is different than belief in the physical world and an objective morality as axiomatic. We clearly see evidence of an innate sense in humans that we live in a real physical world and that we are bound by a moral code. What evidence is there that we as humans have an innate sense of Thor's existence?

Quote:

---

There is no objective moral standard. Even theists, even ones in the same sect disagree on what's moral. If there is agreement morals are enforceable. This is the world you live in, you may be uncomfortable with that reality but it doesn't change it. We decide right and wrong, and so we must be wise in doing so. Pretending god agrees doesn't change the fact that we decide right and wrong. You cannot look at the whole of human civilization and fail to see the constant change of morality from place to place and time to time.

---

We can easily show evidence that society does indeed decide what rules of right and wrong they will agree upon and enforce. This fact does not bear on the existence of an actual objective morality any more than society agreeing upon which knowledge regarding the physical universe to pass onto the next generation bears on the actual objective physical universe.

Quote:

---

Because we start from 0. We must move forward with a moral system of some sort. It's kind of like when your parents leave and forgot to say who is in charge of you and your similarly aged sibling. You and your sibling know, neither have the right to tell the other what to do. You both know, through basic logic, both of you have the right to do whatever you want and each will face the consequenses of their choices.

---

It is the two bolded statements that I think lack grounding in your system. What compels us to move forward with a moral system? Why can't I move forward without regard for any system, you do the same, and if we ultimately clash in doing so, so be it?

Regarding the second statement, I still cannot see why starting at 0 logically mandates you both have the right to do what you want. There must be one or more missing premises there:

Premise 1: Two humans coming into existence at the same time under the same conditions find themselves on a level playing field with respect to each other.

Premise 2/3/etc.:

Conclusion: They both have the right to live however they want so long as how they live does not violate that right in the other.

What are the missing premises that get you from premise 1 to the conclusion logically?

Quote:

---

It is the two bolded statements that I think lack grounding in your system. What compels us to move forward with a moral system? Why can't I move forward without regard for any system, you do the same, and if we ultimately clash in doing so, so be it?

---

This is talking about ability. I'm talking about objective morality. Anyone can be immoral if they choose. I'm not saying "we must establish moral system in order to do anything in actuality". I mean it more like, if we are going to seek to establish a moral system, we must move forward into what can be established as objectively right and objectively wrong.

Quote:

---

Regarding the second statement, I still cannot see why starting at 0 logically mandates you both have the right to do what you want. There must be one or more missing premises there:

Premise 1: Two humans coming into existence at the same time under the same conditions find themselves on a level playing field with respect to each other.

Premise 2/3/etc.:

Conclusion: They both have the right to live however they want so long as how they live does not violate that right in the other.

What are the missing premises that get you from premise 1 to the conclusion logically?

---

Let me see if I can find a better way to spell it out.


When playing this game of objective morality in this realm (the world as we know it), to be an active participant in it you must be able to experience the realm.

This is the least quantifiable state to be a player.

If we are going to recognize a system of rules solely based on objective fact that can be deduced by logical reasoning, then those not only able to experience this realm but also able to reason with logic can be considered players. Those objects not capable of both are not able to be considered as recipients of rights in this realm because they have no way of understanding the rules. Only those capable of understanding can be held morally responsible for keeping to them and therefore having them.

Another requirement is that the players must be able to communicate with the rest of the players. So, for instance an object capable of experiencing this realm and utilizing logical reasoning but is incapable of communicating in any way with the other players is not able to participate in these rights, because the rights deal solely with how players interact with each other.

So, since it is our mind combined with our body that is capable of all these things, then only when our mind is alive and able to control a body are we participating in this game. To physically die would be removal from the game.

In our scenario of 2 guys on an island, neither of them have any proof as to why or how they got into this game. Therefore neither can possibly posses a default moral justification to remove the other from the game (kill). Therefore, by default (not taking into account any future actions or scenarios) they both have the right to exist in the game together. Any justification otherwise could only be made from a subjective standpoint.

So, with the establishment of the recognition of this basic right to live we can move forward. Just as with the right to live in this game, since they are both on equal footing and have no pre-established default hierarchy from any objective creator or purpose then they both have no objective truth that would forbid them on doing anything they wished in this in this game except when their wants and desires collide. If their wants and desires collide on an object that is not a quantifiable participant in this game then subjectivity must come into play to establish ownership. However if their wants and desires collide on an object that is a quantifiable participant in the game, such as each other, the owner of that participant, which is themselves would get the ultimate say, being the rightful owner.

GQaggie said:

---

I agree that we could find morally objectionable practices in most any culture. I think, however, that we would find many, if not most, of these objections would not involve the moral principle itself, but rather the application of the principle. For instance, in any justification for chattel slavery I have heard, the argument has not been that it is ok to own another human. It has been that the owned were somehow subhuman.

---

You should do more reading on this as slavery has a very long history outside of the US. And even within that context varying arguments existed including biblical justifications.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I'm not at all sure that an evolving set of ideals on morality is evidence against an objective moral reality. Our knowledge of the physical universe has evolved, yet we would not say that evolution corresponds to changes in the reality of the objective physical universe. We would say our understanding is more aligned with the objective reality. Why should I expect morality to be different?

---

Well that's just the thing. People don't use different math in asia, they don't have different physics in europe, different chemistry in africa. Yet there are different morals in all these places. I can demonstrate knowledge of the physical universe based on objective standards, you can't do this with morals.

Quote:

---

Neither can I prove the existence of the physical world beyond the existence of my own mind.

---

Which is a weak analogy. If I grant you a universe it's no issue objectively demonstrating scientific facts. Why when I grant you that same universe are you powerless to demonstrate moral facts? This same presupposition could be done for any subjective notion. You are special pleading for this one case where you want to pretend it's objective with no basis to do so besides your own emotions.

Quote:

---

This was sloppy language on my part and obscured my point. It would have been better had I removed the subjective words and said "the sky is blue, chocolate has a taste, and roses have a smell."

---

Actually, you were accidentally more accurate than you meant to be because morality is felt, it's personal, it's subjective, that's why those things occurred to you. You can demonstrate those things as you've reworded them, you are unable to do so with morals.

To put it plainly in a moral context, the current words you are using are akin to saying "people kill other people". The previous words you were using are more like saying "it's wrong to kill other people". This is the is-ought problem. The universe only says what is, not what ought. You need an ethical principal to bridge the gap.

However, even removing the subjective language, it remains a fact that my individual experience of these

Quote:

---

things will have a subjective component, as does any personal experience. When I experience these things, I am subjectively experiencing an objective reality. My point was that I trust the reality of these things based on my experience via the senses. Why is it any less reasonable to believe I am subjectively experiencing an objective morality via my internal sense of morality?

---

Because only one can be objectively demonstrated. And this is contradictory if we accept that your personal emotions are sufficient basis for reality. As I can find someone with different moral views with the same subjective strong emotions connected toward their own moral beliefs. What makes yours superior? We can't accept both as objective as they contradict.

Quote:

---

Why is acceptance of our physical reality as we perceive it a reasonable baseline?

---

got a better one?

Quote:

---

Why not think that I am a brain in a vat?

---

This isn't a terrible baseline but it's worse, as it's less parsimonious. It carries all the complexity of the baseline that we exist in a real universe and adds in a vat, a brain, a universe to house the vat and brain, and something to create the vat and brain, and something to sustain the vat and brain...ect. Basically, you invented an extra universe with no call to do so.

Quote:

---

We trust our physical senses because we have no compelling reason to not do so. In other words, absent a true defeater belief, I am perfectly rational to believe that my senses are giving me a reasonably accurate depiction of my external reality.

---

What if when people looked around no one could agree on what color things are, how heavy they are, what shape they are? They all saw them different?

Quote:

---

What is the defeater belief that would prevent me from viewing my moral sense in the same way?

---

It's simple, you need only take two people, give them the axiomatic view that their moral sense reflects objective truth and see that they don't agree on everything. Also, there is dramatic evidence that your moral sense in malleable. Is that true with your sense of touch or hearing?

Quote:

---

Belief in Thor as an axiom is different than belief in the physical world and an objective morality as axiomatic.

---

Only one of those really.

Quote:

---

We clearly see evidence of an innate sense in humans that we live in a real physical world and that we are bound by a moral code.

---

Those two aren't the same, surely you can see how much weaker one is than the other? In fact, if you couldn't this conversation wouldn't be happening. We are sometimes bound by moral codes of our choosing. Evolution has evolved us with an innate sense of empathy and social bonds, we see these in other creatures incapable of moral judgment.

Quote:

---

What evidence is there that we as humans have an innate sense of Thor's existence?

---

This is, in fact, argued all the time by religions for their god. It's just as untrue as what you say.

Quote:

---

We can easily show evidence that society does indeed decide what rules of right and wrong they will agree upon and enforce. This fact does not bear on the existence of an actual objective morality any more than society agreeing upon which knowledge regarding the physical universe to pass onto the next generation bears on the actual objective physical universe.

---

Except one set of knowledge has an empirical, objective foundation. There aren't different scientific facts from one country to the next. Further, we can reasonably understand that humans have no innate sense of scientific knowledge, it's discovered. You are stuck arguing humans have an innate knowledge of objective morality. Why would this evolve? Why would it vary so widely from people to people from place to place? And even from person to person?

Show me this objective morality. Demonstrate it. You are arguing on pure unadulterated faith.

Quote:

---

Using that logic: If you believe in Christian hell, you should be in favor of abortion because most people don't make it to heaven if they reach adulthood. Missing out on life is minor if you are basically guaranteed to skip enduring perpetual torture in exchange for eternal bliss at the end of it.

---

A Christian believing in a hell should not be in favor of abortion because this demands one to perform the abortions. If we follow the heart of Jesus we would rather an abortionist be saved and turn from their wicked ways than suffer judgement.

Quote:

---

In our scenario of 2 guys on an island, neither of them have any proof as to why or how they got into this game. Therefore neither can possibly posses a default moral justification to remove the other from the game (kill). Therefore, by default (not taking into account any future actions or scenarios) they both have the right to exist in the game together. Any justification otherwise could only be made from a subjective standpoint.

---

Looking for a moral justification presupposes some standard of right and wrong. If they are looking for justification, that presupposes they have some sort of notion of this standard. What gave them this idea? Why did they think to look for a justification at all? Without prior knowledge of right and wrong, why assume actions would need to be justified? Why wouldn't all actions be neither right nor wrong?

That is where culture comes in. Just because the objective truth exists, does not mean a human will be motivated to find it or recognize it by default. Judeo/Christian culture is ultimately what led large groups of humanity to start to understand and recognize these concepts, I do not argue against that fact.

Just because I have a subjective reason to find out what 1 + 1 is does not make the answer to that question subjective.

Quote:

---

Well that's just the thing. People don't use different math in asia, they don't have different physics in europe, different chemistry in africa. Yet there are different morals in all these places. I can demonstrate knowledge of the physical universe based on objective standards, you can't do this with morals.

Quote:

---

Neither can I prove the existence of the physical world beyond the existence of my own mind.

---

Which is a weak analogy. If I grant you a universe it's no issue objectively demonstrating scientific facts. Why when I grant you that same universe are you powerless to demonstrate moral facts? This same presupposition could be done for any subjective notion. You are special pleading for this one case where you want to pretend it's objective with no basis to do so besides your own emotions.

---

I think the differences in moral principles across cultures is being oversold. I think the basic moral principles of most cultures, even when in relative isolation from each other, are remarkably similar. Furthermore, I think we would both agree that the morality of a society is influenced by many other factors in addition to the innate sense of right and wrong. I would not attempt to carry the analogy that far.

Even if you granted that objective morals existed, I do not think you would expect one to be able to demonstrate them in the same way as things are demonstrated in the physical world. Objective morals would be metaphysical and, thus, non-demonstrable via physical means. You would not ask someone to hand you an objective moral standard so that you could see, touch, and smell it. You would not examine it under a microscope or weigh it on a scale.

Granting the universe, of course you should be able to demonstrate some scientific facts. You are simply describing the very thing that has already been granted. The real question is why do you accept a universe at all. You do so because you trust your senses. You believe that what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch corresponds to a physical reality. Absent a defeater belief, this trust is rational. In addition to those five physical senses, I recognize another sense within me. It is not the same as the five physical senses, yet it is no less real, and often, it is more intense. It is a strong sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil. It is not merely evolved empathy, for when I find my inclination to empathy and my inclination to selfishness in conflict, I find this sense intensely judging between the two. It says the inclination to empathy is right, and the inclination to selfishness is wrong. To simply dismiss this as untrustworthy makes no sense. To say that it is not indicative of some objective reality makes no sense. I do not follow how it is special pleading to believe that this sense points to an objective reality and not so to believe that my physical senses point to an objective physical reality.

Arguing based on the expectation that objective morals should be demonstrable like objective physical facts is question begging. You start with the assumption that the physical universe is all there is. You rightly conclude that if there is only the physical universe, then objective morality cannot exist. Based on that initial assumption and it's resultant conclusion, you further conclude that any sense of morality within us must merely be a product of that physical universe. You then demand objective morals be demonstrated like physical facts after it already established that objective morality is impossible given a purely physical existence.

Quote:

---

This is the is-ought problem. The universe only says what is, not what ought. You need an ethical principal to bridge the gap.

---

Agreed. I believe we have been given one, and our innate sense of right and wrong is evidence of that fact.

Quote:

---

As I can find someone with different moral views with the same subjective strong emotions connected toward their own moral beliefs. What makes yours superior? We can't accept both as objective as they contradict.

---

Each individual's sense of right and wrong is not the objective standard. There is no issue that some contradiction exists. The innate sense of right and wrong points to an objective standard. It is evidence that such a standard exists. All that being said, we are still not in agreement regarding the degree of variation in that innate sense. I believe that for the most part, assuming one is of sound mind, an individual's innate sense is a pretty reliable indicator of the true standard.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
We trust our physical senses because we have no compelling reason to not do so. In other words, absent a true defeater belief, I am perfectly rational to believe that my senses are giving me a reasonably accurate depiction of my external reality.

---

What if when people looked around no one could agree on what color things are, how heavy they are, what shape they are? They all saw them different?

---

More accurately, imagine they look around and agree generally but not exactly. You describe a dark blue, equilateral triangular shaped block that feels like it weighs a couple of pounds. I describe a bluish green block with three sides that appears a little taller than wide and weighs about as much as a teacup chihuahua. Could a third person reasonably conclude we are talking about the same object despite the differences in description? Obviously, yes.

To give a moral based example, it is possible to see one society that prohibits all abortions and another that liberally allows them and still conclude that their moral principles are similar. Both can say that they believe it is wrong to kill a human life but disagree when one becomes a human. The society that bans them will naturally find the society that allows them morally abhorrent, but both have a principle that points to the objective standard. These differences simply do not make a compelling argument against an objective standard.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
What is the defeater belief that would prevent me from viewing my moral sense in the same way?

---

It's simple, you need only take two people, give them the axiomatic view that their moral sense reflects objective truth and see that they don't agree on everything. Also, there is dramatic evidence that your moral sense in malleable. Is that true with your sense of touch or hearing?

---

I have already addressed the first objection. I'm not sure I've spent much time considering the second question. I would need to know what exactly you mean by malleable. I think there is little we can do to change what types and levels of physical stimuli our physical senses are capable of transmitting to our brain; however, we can dramatically improve our ability to decipher and interpret those signals. An avid hunter is likely to interpret the sounds of nature in a way that corresponds to objective reality more closely than the person who spends all their time inside. Similarly, I think our ability to decipher and interpret our moral sense can be improved or worsened based on our habits.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
We clearly see evidence of an innate sense in humans that we live in a real physical world and that we are bound by a moral code.

---

Those two aren't the same, surely you can see how much weaker one is than the other? In fact, if you couldn't this conversation wouldn't be happening. We are sometimes bound by moral codes of our choosing. Evolution has evolved us with an innate sense of empathy and social bonds, we see these in other creatures incapable of moral judgment.

---

I do not see how one is much weaker. Perhaps I have an abnormally intense sense of right and wrong, but it seems every bit as strong as my sense that I live in a physical world. Based on how I see others react when they believe they have been treated unfairly or how fiercely they defend themselves when accused of treating someone else unfairly, I do not think I am particularly unique.

Quote:

---

Show me this objective morality. Demonstrate it. You are arguing on pure unadulterated faith.

---

I believe you have been shown it by God, but our point of impasse obviously occurs well before reaching agreement on that point. Assuming for a moment that objective morality existed, what would the evidence look like? What would you need to see?