What is the religious meaning of 'evidence'?

Objective morality is the difference between right and wrong outside of human opinions. For example, if Hitler were to win WWII and convince the entire world he was correct, would you still find his actions wrong?

Ok. So you find rape wrong. So, my question to you is, why is it wrong? If the rapist won't get caught and can easily get away from it, then that eliminates the possibility of him being harmed. Since there is no harm, I want to know what makes it wrong.

You're being asked a checkmate question and you don't even realize it.

 

So now you're begging the question, which is another fallacy. There is nothing but human opinion to judge morality. In other words, this statement starts with the implied assumption that God exists, which if you'll remember, is a point of contention and cannot be assumed.

Putting it all together results in circular reasoning. You're on quite the fallacious roll.

If you're trying to make the point that objective morality is "the difference between right and wrong outside of human opinions", why do you keep asking my opinion? It would be irrelevant.

LOL. Ironically, you've just checkmated yourself.

 

LOL. Lets laugh together, huh?

I told you that you were entering a trap. That trap is the checkmate question. However, it's obvious you don't know what a checkmate question is.

A checkmate question is a question in which you'll automatically lose to - whether you answer it or not. With a checkmate question you have only two options. Both options end in a loss (thus the term 'checkmate') You can either:

1) Not answer the question. Others reading your reply will conclude that you can't answer the question and proceed to believe that you've been proven wrong. Thus you lose.
2) Answer the question and expose your own hypocrisy. Doing so would nullify your points altogether. Others reading your answer will conclude that you're an immoral monster and proceed to believe you've been proven wrong. Thus you lose.

You chose option 1. Therefore, you lose.

 

You formulated the argument incorrectly. You are using a logical fallacy known as the inverse error.

1) If mammals don't exist, then unicorns (being mammals) don't exist.

2) Mammals do exist.

3) Therefore, unicorns exist.

Or

1) If I don't have a silk hat, then I can't transform a silk hat into a purple Dimetrodon.

2) I do have a silk hat.

3) Therefore I can transform a silk hat into a purple Dimetrodon.

You can fix it by saying

1) Objective morality exists iff (if and only if) God exists.

2) Objective morality exists

3) Therefore, God exists.

I'll even grant you #2. Rape, for example, I would consider to be objectively wrong. However, I don't buy #1.

 

Not exactly.

Do you believe objective morals exist without God? Does it make sense for morality to be totally objective and outside of human opinion without *something* imposing those morals?

 

There are two problems with your mind-bendingly devious "trap".

One, I clearly showed how your questions were irrelevant from your own point of view. If you claim that objective morality has nothing to do with human opinion, then there is no reason to ask for my opinion, since, as far as I'm aware, I am human. This should be glaringly obvious, but you seem to have missed it several times, even after having it explained.

Two, since I didn't give a direct answer, making conclusions about what you seem to think my answer would have been is silly. In fact, it would not have contradicted anything I have previously said, and thus, be in no way hypocritical. It seems you need to work on your trap-making skills.

Here...

Yes.

As I said, whether the rapist gets caught is irrelevant. There is harm, just to the one being raped, not the rapist.


(The same rationale for "why" also applies to the Hitler question. I didn't feel the need to explain twice, but I then I thought I should probably add this clarification since you might not get that on your own.)

 

Yes. In order to be objective, morals have to be based on something other than the will, tastes and opinions of conscious beings. Substituting the tastes and opinions of humans for the tastes and opinions of God does not make it any less subjective. Divine command theory is the only moral theory that requires God, and it is quite subjective. Anything becomes permissible if God decides to command it.

 

1) They cannot be irrelevant if my point is to simply show that your idea of morality isn't based on social constructs or opinion. My example is further elucidated in your second point.

2) You couldn't give an answer, because your answer would simply contradict what you're saying. Once again, the example is further illustrated in your second point which I will address now.

You're saying that your "opinion" on right and wrong is separate from what society views as right and wrong. If Hitler convinced the entire world that what he did was right, you're saying your view of what he did will still be that of contempt. However... You then go to say...

And this is where you hang yourself. Allow me to explain:

1) Lions mate several times a day. Many times without the female's consent. However, we do not call this rape.

2) However, a male does the same thing to a woman, and you say there's harm, even though the male did exactly what any other animal would do.

You disagreed with the act of rape, even though the male simply acted out his animalistic instinct to reproduce. Yet, you have no basis for such an opinion. You claim your "opinions" aren't based from societal conditioning or any other outside factor - yet you are unable to explain the foundation of such opinions.

Yet, allow me to approach the issue from another direction: Lets say the rapist thought he was doing something good to help ensure the population of the species, yet you felt it was not because of "harm". The question is, what makes your "opinion" any different than his? You have no foundation for such opinions because you've admitted that society plays no part in them. So, if raping women was part of a social trend to help a species survive, you'd be opposed to it. Thus, your own opinion would be detrimental to the existence of the human race. Thus, your opinion on "harm" would be harmful in and of itself.

Do you understand now? If society felt doing certain things helped the human species survive, you'd be opposed to it based off no clear foundational value. This is why objective morality exists. Without objective morality, then everyone would be doing their own thing and there really wouldn't be a difference between what a rapist or murderer thinks is right and what you think is right.

The real question is, what is the foundation for subjective moral values? Can you tell me?

 

Actually he won. He answered the question and answered it in the most honest way.
Just because one does something society deems morally wrong, but doesn't get caught, doesn't make it morally right.

Now, the person themselves committing the act, may or may not have a conscience, to deem it right or wrong.

 

Why isn't it morally right? Can you tell me the foundation in which you base your opinions from?

 

Of subjective moral values? The foundation of subjective moral values is, well, subjectivity. Subjective morals are based on personal tastes, values, opinions, will and desire. It doesn't matter of those subjective values are those of humans, a God or purple aliens from the Crab Nebula, any morality based on the personal tastes, values, opinions, will and desire of any being is subjective.

 

I didn't ask where in your mind do morals come from. I asked what the foundation of subjective morality is. In other words, if I were to go back in time to the first moral man, where could I link his morality to?

I'll break it down even further. If we go back to where men were cavemen (for argument sake here). Killing is what they needed to do to survive. Where did the idea that "killing is wrong" in an environment of "survival of the fittest" come from?

 

You seem to think that the only way to be the fittest is to kill everybody else. That's not how it works. Being the fittest means just being able to survive. You don't have to kill others to survive. Maybe under extreme duress...

 

Extreme duress? Considering there were no cops back then, I'm quite sure "extreme duress" was a daily occurrence. You still have yet to identify the foundation of subjective morality. The idea has to originate from somewhere. No one wakes up one morning after killing to eat and survive, "Yeppers.... Maybe I should stop killing people to survive and eat because... Ya know... Maybe others won't like it."

 

Do I really have to explain common sense issues to you? If you lived in a small "society" of twenty people, and there was no authority figure telling you what right or wrong is, your modus operandi would be to kill everybody? This is why Einstein was so denigrating to the people who said God was the reason why we don't kill each other daily.

 

I simplified the point so you could understand where I was coming from. Now you're using simplified reasoning, which suggests you've completely missed the point I was making.

So, lets try this again, OK?

What is the foundation of subjective morality? The idea had to originate from somewhere. Can you point out any history in which subjective morality came into being? If you believe in macroevolution, then you have to believe that humans were once savage animals at one point. So, at what point did humans suddenly develop subjective morality?

Understand that morality on its own violates the laws of self-perseverance. Morality often times causes humans to dwindle their own numbers as opposed to increase them. So, what sense does it make for morality to exist in an environment of "survival of the fittest"?

 

You don't seem understand that "survival of the fittest" doesn't refer to individuals, it refers to an entire species. Killing off members of our own species really doesn't do is good for continuing as one. Not sure how this doesn't make sense to you.

 

** slaps forehead **

Because it isn't just limited to killing people. The whole "kill or be killed" was an example I made to make my point. Morality goes beyond killing. Why can't you understand that? Why is my question so difficult for you to answer?

 

Look at any group of animals in an animal kingdom. Do they go out and wage war against each other? I mean... sometimes, but the vast majority of time they work in groups to protect themselves. That's how morality develops. Morality started out as simply watching out for your own kind, and then it expanded from there.

 

You don't know what morality is. So, allow me to further elaborate.
The Trolley Problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

Why are so many people willing to pull the lever to kill the 1 to save the many, but refuse to push 1 person off a bridge for the same result? Can you answer that question? Scientists are baffled.
The reality is, you don't know the foundation of subjective morality because it doesn't have one. You're just guessing that it does, and that should really disturb you.

 

This has nothing to do with science, it's an ethical problem. So, maybe that's why they're baffled.

Why would that disturb me? The basis for "objective" morality is just as tenuous.

 

Wait... So you don't think morality is about ethics but about science?

 

You were the one that brought up scientists, dude...

 

But I didn't.
So, which is it. Is morality about ethics or not?

 

But morality is based on both social constructs and opinion. Almost everything about us is learned. When we're very young, we are taught right and wrong, both directly from others like our parents and other family members, and also indirectly from observing our environment and social interactions. Then as we age, learn more about the world, and discover ourselves, we form our own opinions on those learned moral/social rules. Sometimes we stick with them, some we tweak, and some we may discard entirely.

Your Hitler question is a bit more nuanced than how you are framing it. You're attempting to shoehorn a complex scenario into a quick and simple "gotcha". For one, I'm answering from my current point of view. Also, it's hard enough getting 10 people to agree on anything, let alone the entire world's population. I can say with absolute confidence that your scenario could never happen.

In any case, I originally felt that going into such detail was unecessary, hence my succinct "yes". Even the above is more simple than it could be given a proper discussion, though since this isn't really about the pros and cons of genocidal megalomania, I have no desire to spend more time on it.

Seriously? Completely irrelevant - we're not lions. You're comparing apples and hand grenages.

The societal rules followed by humans are not the same as lions or any other animal species - which should be obvious.

BS. I fully admit to not taking the time to look to see if there's actual data on this, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have committed rape due to acting out their "animalistic instinct to reproduce" is negligible.

I've never made such a claim.

His reasoning is irrelevant. He forced himself on someone without their consent. That's the only factor that matters. To repeat an often-used phrase, my rights end where yours begin.

Again, no, I've never made such a claim.

Someone's gotta have principals and the conviction to stick to them. So, if the human race were dying and "society" in general adapted in such a way that rape was considered acceptable, yes, I would still be against it.

Of course there would be a foundational value - protecting the individual rights of the victim, and preventing unimaginable trauma.

This whole thing is similar to the Hitler question, in that you are presenting a very complicated scenario and attempting to strip it down into something simple. For example, I can guarantee that I would not be the only one who still felt rape was unacceptable. In fact, common sense would dictate that the vast majority of those who would actually partake in raping would be those who would do so anyway. Father O'Malley at the local Catholic church isn't going to join a roving band of raping "humanists". In other words, this is another scenario that would never happen. Anyone with a modicum of forethought would realize that it's probably not the best solution to repopulate the planet with those who could force themselves on someone and still fall asleep at night (and let's face it, violence would also still be necessary).

All that said, I'm done with all these ridiculous hypotheticals. They're obviously not accomplishing why you thought they would.

You seem to think that you've proven your point, but you definitely have not. Most of what you've brought up is either irrelevant or just wrong. I think I've sufficiently show as such in that my answers do not coincide with what you predict my answers to will be.

Lots of things can influence one's sense of morality (partly explained above), but ultimately, each individual is their own foundation.


Summary - I do not share the the same morals as the guy next to me, thus, morality is subjective. Your definition of "objective morality" is also fallacious, since it first assumes that God exists, which means that your entire argument stems from an invalid premise.