Objective Morality

[eye over you]

Not too get sexist here, but do the terrorists who think they will be rewarded with all these virgins get to specify what kind of virgins? As in age, looks, etc? I am sure they imagine it's worth dying for the chance to party with 72 naked 16-year-old Britney Spears lookalikes for all eternity.  They could end up blowing themselves to kingdom come and find themselves in a sultan's palace with dozens of 85-year-old bikini-clad Mother Teresas.

[One Above All]

Not too get sexist here, but do the terrorists who think they will be rewarded with all these virgins get to specify what kind of virgins? As in age, looks, etc? I am sure they imagine it's worth dying for the chance to party with 72 naked 16-year-old Britney Spears lookalikes for all eternity.  They could end up blowing themselves to kingdom come and find themselves in a sultan's palace with dozens of 85-year-old bikini-clad Mother Teresas.

Trust me, nogodsforme, after about a month without sex, they'd start thinking Mother Theresa was hot. These people are acting on the most primitive instincts we have - that part of our DNA from when we were "monkeys". Animals are even simpler creatures than we are. Reproduce and survive is all they can "think" about. In heaven there's no reproduction, but the impulse to have sex is still there.

[jeremy0]

Have you noticed how often monkeys masturbate in public zoos?  Clearly, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Most organisms have mating seasons.  We just need a full moon and a jungle..  Whoop Whoop!  Ah ah ah!

[12 Monkeys]

Have you noticed how often monkeys masturbate in public zoos?  Clearly, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Most organisms have mating seasons.  We just need a full moon and a jungle..  Whoop Whoop!  Ah ah ah!

not to mention the throwing shit thing

[nogodsforme]

Have you noticed how often monkeys masturbate in public zoos?  Clearly, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Most organisms have mating seasons.  We just need a full moon and a jungle..  Whoop Whoop!  Ah ah ah!

not to mention the throwing shit thing

Only now they have talk shows for that.

[MathIsCool]

Ooh!  An objective morality thread!  My favorite!

I do not wish to discuss religious beliefs but I do have some opinions I'd like to bring up that I have learned through observation.

In theory morality is subjective, but what about in practice?

I mean could it ever be said to be moral to torture and kill a baby?  Just because someone may say they are doing something for moral reasons, are they really?  Or are they just trying to justify themselves while at the same time they actually feel they are being immoral?

I agree.  In practice, once we all stop arguing with people who are wrong on the internet and go outside, I'd say we all have remarkably similar moral frameworks.

Heck, we all talk like morals are objective too.  Sure, someone might bring up (in response to the above) that there were cultures that participated in cannibalism, or ritualistic human sacrifice, or mass genocide of their infants.  When that comes up we all feel that today's modern culture is better than the ancient ones, don't we?  But whadya mean, better?  Doesn't that imply an objective standard by which you're comparing human cultures?  You're back to square 1.  In fact, nearly every other post on all 9 pages of this thread have attempted to argue in some way or another that the posters own moral code is better than God's.

It's fun to post on the internet and insist that morality is subjective.  Have at it.  But we all[1] know that morality is objective, and act accordingly every day.

1.	well, the vast majority.  99.9% of the people reading this right now.  Psychopaths do exist, though.

[Graybeard]

... When that comes up we all feel that today's modern culture is better than the ancient ones, don't we?  But whadya mean, better?  Doesn't that imply an objective standard by which you're comparing human cultures? 

No. You have perfectly described subjective morality, "I think mine is better." In 100 years time, people will laugh at our way of doing things. It's all subjective.

[JeffPT]

I agree.  In practice, once we all stop arguing with people who are wrong on the internet and go outside, I'd say we all have remarkably similar moral frameworks.

Have you ever been outside in Afghanistan?  I'd say if you stepped outside over there, you might see a whole lot of people who disagree with you on a wide range of moral issues. 

Heck, we all talk like morals are objective too. 

We do? 

Sure, someone might bring up (in response to the above) that there were cultures that participated in cannibalism, or ritualistic human sacrifice, or mass genocide of their infants. 

You mean, cultures that had different moral viewpoints as ours?  Evidence of subjectivity. 

When that comes up we all feel that today's modern culture is better than the ancient ones, don't we?

And the cultures of the future will think the same about our current, modern culture that still has a problem with gays, women's right, racism and still thinks it's a good thing to chop off a piece of baby boy penis. 

Doesn't that imply an objective standard by which you're comparing human cultures? 

No.  Better in the same way that some people think green is better than pink.  You don't need an objective standard by which to judge morality any more than you need one to judge colors.  Come on man. We've been over this with you.  It's not that hard.  Try to keep up.   

You're back to square 1.

You never left square one.  Dude, you've been handed your ass on morality long before today.  Why you would come back now for another thrashing and just embarrass yourself again is beyond me.  You're just wrong.  Very wrong.   

It's fun to post on the internet and insist that morality is subjective.

We only have to do that because some fools think it's not. 

Have at it.  But we all[1] know that morality is objective, and act accordingly every day.

1.	well, the vast majority.  99.9% of the people reading this right now.  Psychopaths do exist, though.

You perceive that because the people you surround yourself with are like minded culturally, but if you could think yourself out of a paper bag, you'd realize how stupid you look when you write things like this.  Maybe you need to get out more and see the world to understand that not everyone thinks exactly the same way you do.  And when you realize that in some places around the world, seeing a woman alone with a man who is not her husband or family member in public can be grounds to stone her to death, maybe you'll start to see the truth that morality is subjective. 

Stay away from this topic, MiC.  You're a punching bag in here. 

[jeremy0]

Stay away from this topic, MiC.  You're a punching bag in here.

How many times do they need to repetitively prove you wrong?  It's like what they say to you doesn't register, does not compute, and my AI is going whacko with seeing the facts of this thread, seeing what both parties have to say - no matter what is said to you, you keep your original hypothesis as though it hasn't been disproven, when in fact it has.  A scientist with a theory would look at his theory and say - shit.  It's disproven.  You look at your disproven theory and say - shit.  I don't understand...

[MathIsCool]

This is funny:

...[C]ultures [have] different moral viewpoints as ours...  Evidence of subjectivity. 

Ancient cultures believed the earth was flat.  We believe it's round.  Is the shape of the earth subjective?  Some people believe Einstein's relativity is real.  Others believe it's a bunch of made-up nonsense.  Is the equivalence of matter and energy subjective opinion?

But OK, let's just sweep your poor logic under the rug and say cultures define morality.  What's right for culture A is not necessarily right for culture B.  Let's see how long you can make it through the post pretending believing morals are subjective.

And the cultures of the future will think the same about our current, modern culture that still has a problem with gays, women's right, racism and still thinks it's a good thing to chop off a piece of baby boy penis. 

... Not even one sentence.  Literally a sentence later, you betray your objective moral standards.  Why is it bad to "still have a problem with gays, women's rights, and racism?"  Why is it bad to "chop off a piece of a baby boy [sic] penis?"  According to you, those acts are good and righteous by definition.  The culture of the future will not look with horror and disgust on us, and neither should we feel superior to past cultures.  Like you said, it's just a matter of taste, a matter of green being better than pink.  Certain sub-cultures in America like disco; certain others like video games; and certain others enjoy beating and gang-raping young girls, keeping them in a dog kennel, and forcing them into a life of prostitution.  Potato, Potahto.

Let's put it this way.  I'm one of those backward cave-men who think marriage is between one man and one women. (I'm sure you're shocked.)  You probably disagree, and not only that, but think our society ought to be amended to be more fair.  The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.  Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

Should it change?  If so, why?  (And a good answer is not "Because it's my opinion."  Nobody died and made you king.)

[12 Monkeys]

MiC  why are you not doing as your God commands...kill Gay men and lesbian women,unruly teens,those who work the Sabbath and the myriad of others God has COMMANDED you to kill.......What the FUCK is stopping you from carrying out these commands? Christian morality? Fear of punishment by your fellow humans?  If you fear God why not carry out his COMMAND or are you to afraid of the punishment?

 Why would you ignore the word of God.....it used to be a social norm for Christians to kill each other for reasons God specified,why not now,why now is this not reasonable or acceptable? Christianity has not changed the rules,but Christians sure have

[MathIsCool]

...

This is a thread about objective morality.  I maintain that everyone knows morality is objective and acts like it, as the OP maintains.

Try to stick to the point instead of going on obscenity laced rants and maybe we can have a discussion.

[JeffPT]

... Not even one sentence.  Literally a sentence later, you betray your objective moral standards.  Why is it bad to "still have a problem with gays, women's rights, and racism?"  Why is it bad to "chop off a piece of a baby boy [sic] penis?"  According to you, those acts are good and righteous by definition. 

Oh for for fuck's sake.  I am saying they are wrong IN MY OPINION and that in the future, cultures will NOT see those things as morally good.  Jesus fucking Christ dude. 

The culture of the future will not look with horror and disgust on us, and neither should we feel superior to past cultures.

Oh yes they will.  And the reason they will is because their morality will differ from ours in many ways.  And in that difference, they will feel the same smug superiority that we currently do when we look on in horror and disgust at cannibals and human sacrifices.  The truth, however, is that it simply changes over time.  There is no 'goal' for it.  There is no objectivity to it.  No matter how much you want to think there is, there isn't.  People have morals now, they had morals in the past, and they will have morals in the future.  Where there are differences, there will be judgements based on those differences. 

Like you said, it's just a matter of taste, a matter of green being better than pink.

I'd like to think you're getting it now, but something tells me you're very much a lost cause on this. 

Certain sub-cultures in America like disco; certain others like video games; and certain others enjoy beating and gang-raping young girls, keeping them in a dog kennel, and forcing them into a life of prostitution.  Potato, Potahto.

Thankfully the latter is incredibly rare, because IN MY OPINION those people are horrible for society.  I would think you agree with my opinion on that, right?  Do you disagree with my opinion on that, or do you agree with that?  Is it your opinion that raping young girls is bad or good? 

Let's put it this way.  I'm one of those backward cave-men who think marriage is between one man and one women.

Taking away people's rights because of your dogged adherence to ancient iron age bullshit is a religious rite of passage.  Do you also think I should be killed for eating shellfish?  How about working on Sundays?   

You probably disagree, and not only that, but think our society ought to be amended to be more fair.

I'm sorry that the notion of equal rights seems so awful to you.   I like fairness.  I see no reason to discriminate against people for race, gender, or sexual orientation. 

The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.  Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

No MiC,  that is not the case.  The vocal minority is what pushes that agenda... and the people who make the laws are forced to hear them because the minority is not nearly as tyrannical about their position.  The public at large desires same sex marriage.  It is the religious right that wants to deny rights to people, and it just so happens that they are rich and donate well to political campaigns. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Even if you were right, (which you're not) however, that would not change my opinion that the law should be changed. 

Do you personally agree with every law on the books? 

Should it change?  If so, why?  (And a good answer is not "Because it's my opinion."  Nobody died and made you king.)

Yes, because the majority of people, as I pointed out to you, support same sex marriage. The same reason many laws get changed over time.  On a personal note, I THINK it should changed because I THINK it's wrong.  Do you get that?  I am not trying to say I'm king.  You are asking my OPINION when you say 'should it change' and the answer is yes, I THINK it should change.  You THINK it is good to deny people rights, but nobody died and made you king either. 

But you see, that's the biggest problem with people like you.  You read some stupid shit in a really old book, you think it's from God, and then you think it gives you some sort of supernatural backing for your opinions when none exists at all.  The people who crashed those planes into the WTC thought the same thing.  In essence, you THINK your opinions are objective because you read them in a book someplace, or you heard it from some guy in a silly black robe who gets up and talks while standing beneath a guy nailed to 2 pieces of wood, and then everyone should just bow down and agree with you.  Fuck that.  No thanks.  I respect your right to form your opinions, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna think they're worth a shit.  You're morality sucks ass (yes, that is my OPINION OF YOUR MORAL VIEWPOINTS) if you think gay people shouldn't have the right to marry.  I can say that because it clashes quite fiercely with my own moral opinion.  What the hell does gay marriage do to you?  Nothing.       

[Timo]

A quick point:

Let's put it this way.  I'm one of those backward cave-men who think marriage is between one man and one women. (I'm sure you're shocked.)  You probably disagree, and not only that, but think our society ought to be amended to be more fair.  The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.  Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

Should it change?  If so, why?  (And a good answer is not "Because it's my opinion."  Nobody died and made you king.)

Nah son

To begin with, I don't think you're exactly right about public opinion.  32 states have indeed rejected it--most recently North Carolina.  I live in one of those states (California).  But Maryland's probably going to be the first state to vote to uphold it, which itself reflects the way public opinion has been moving on this issue over the last few decades.  The tide's turning.  There is polling data that shows that support for marriage equality is growing at a rapid pace, which is why even conservative Republicans that are in the business of looking at polling data are encouraging their fellow conservative Republicans to embrace it.  So nah, you can't really say that our culture has spoken.  We're still talking.

But all that's neither here nor there.  I think that, as a legal question, this isn't something that can be settled by a majority vote.  It's a question of civil rights.  In other words, my problem with denying same-sex partners the right to marry isn't that I think that doing so is immoral (though I have no problem saying that I think it is) my problem with it is that I think it's illegal.  I think it's unconstitutional.  And really, I don't even understand what the argument against marriage equality is suposed to be at this point.  Whenever I hear someone speak in opposition to this, I just find their arguments to be utterly incoherent.  But that's another discussion entirely.  And this post itself is a tangent.

In any case, I'm not sure that I'd call you backwards for being opposed to marriage equality.  The president, who I quite like, has only recently come out in favor of it.  I wasn't calling him backwards last month.  (I also thought he was lying.  So there's that.)


Peace

[Rustybeatz]

You probably disagree, and not only that, but think our society ought to be amended to be more fair. 

I have to admit I'm rather confused about this statement.  So, do you think that society should be as unfair as possible towards certain groups?  I don't understand why someone wouldn't want society to be fair.  This is a strange statement on your part and quite frankly it possibly implicates you on many horrible things.  Seriously, what's going on in your melon?

The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter. 

And fifty years ago people thought black people and white people in the US should drink out of separate water fountains, but these days that mentality is looked at like it's a back woods mentality.  Where do you think your stance on homosexuality will be in another forty or fifty years?  (Hopefully sooner)

[jeremy0]

@Mathis:

Your viewpoints are based on a 2,000 year old book.  Get over it.  We are a different culture now.  Many things have changed since then.  You don't need to base your subjective morality on things that took place 2,000 years ago.  Our viewpoints, as the president put it, are 'evolving', as they should.

You need to wake the fuck up, dude.  We live in the 21st century - not the 0th century.  You don't have a winning argument.  You are an incompetent.  You are an idiot.  I ought to strap you to a tree, and throw rocks at you until you pass out, just for good measure - and feed you to the coyotes.  But I can't, because subjective morality tells me that is a bad thing...

God dude, you really are fucking crazier than a goose with no wings.

[Add Homonym]

Let's put it this way.  I'm one of those backward cave-men who think marriage is between one man and one women. (I'm sure you're shocked.)

Along with all the Muslims and Mormons.

The morality that you are trying to argue is objective is not even agreed between major self-righteous religions.

The Bible does not specifically discuss abortion, masturbation, pedophilia, euthanasia, torture, democracy, wife beating/sexism, minimum age of marriage, drug/alcohol abuse, child exploitation, blah blah. These are all things we have to make up, according to modern taste, based on the premise that we should be nice to people, for our society to flourish

The bible does not start with a decree that people should be nice. It starts with an idiotic, jealous god, prohibiting worship of other gods, and laying down laws of women being property. The only moral in the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not kill (in secret)", which is what most cultures have agreed on, because if they don't they end up dead.

The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.

It's only prevailing by a small margin (in some countries), and only because those people against it, think God wrote it in stone; not because their conscience really believes it.

Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

It will speak again, next decade, and eventually, the fuctards will lose, and have to tolerate being the 48%.

Should it change?  If so, why?  (And a good answer is not "Because it's my opinion."  Nobody died and made you king.)

No, but eventually, you will die, and somebody intelligent will be king.

[Add Homonym]

  We live in the 21st century - not the 0th century.  You don't have a winning argument.  You are an incompetent.  You are an idiot.  I ought to strap you to a tree, and throw rocks at you until you pass out, just for good measure -

Easy, easy. I think he should be forced into an arranged marriage with a 8 year old lesbian. The main thing he wants is the dowry.

[Anfauglir]

Let's put it this way.  I'm one of those backward cave-men who think marriage is between one man and one women. (I'm sure you're shocked.)  You probably disagree, and not only that, but think our society ought to be amended to be more fair.  The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.  Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

Should it change?  If so, why?  (And a good answer is not "Because it's my opinion."  Nobody died and made you king.)

One of MICs points, at least, is valid.  If morality IS subjective, as most of us agree, then there is indeed no intrinsic value of our subjective morality over his: no reason we can say that he should accept our morality because it is in some way "better" - its better because we subjectively believe it to be, while he regards it as worse because that's what he subjectively believes.

So what grounds have we to actually decide on a "best" morality - or, perhaps more realistically, a "slightly better than another" morality? 

Let's look at gay marriage, since that is the issue MIC has chosen.  He thinks its wrong, we think its right.  But what are the arguments for our subjective moralities?  For me, the primary argument (as already expressed by a couple people) is that it is wrong for some groups to be allowed to engage in a particular practice, but not to allow it for others.  Indeed, that would be the crux of any system of morality for me - that what's right for me is right for you, and what's wrong for you is wrong for me too.

MIC, it seems that one of the tenets of your chosen morality is that "some people can do this, and some people can NOT do this".  Can I ask you to explain by what reason you think that is fair, or moral?  What do you actually mean by "moral", anyway?  If you can, can you give an overriding definition of "moral" as I have done in the paragraph above?

Final point: an objective morality would be one that is correct throughout all times, in all cultures and situations.  While people may occasionally believe that particular aspects of that morality are "currenty wrong", we should be able to look back and say quite categorically that person A did not act according to that objective morality.  There is always the question of how one knows what that objective morality is, but I would appreciate it if you could lay out precisely a few things that are indeed "objectively moral".

[screwtape]

Ancient cultures believed the earth was flat.  We believe it's round.  Is the shape of the earth subjective?  Some people believe Einstein's relativity is real.  Others believe it's a bunch of made-up nonsense.  Is the equivalence of matter and energy subjective opinion?

Those are bad analogies and your rather condescending attitude is unwarranted.

In the case of the Earth's shape and ToR, the objective truth about both can be determined through observation.  Where do we observe object morals?  Until you can provide that, your thesis is a pipe dream.

You are ill informed on on subjective morality and what morality is.  You are arguing against things you do not understand.  You seem to think that there is a giant golden tablet floating in some ethereal plane which says what is really (really) good and evil.  There isn't.

Good and evil are judgements that rely on context and perspective, which can change with time.  The Zen story "Maybe" illustrates that idea: http://www.myrkothum.com/the-10-very-best-zen-stories/

[12 Monkeys]

...

This is a thread about objective morality.  I maintain that everyone knows morality is objective and acts like it, as the OP maintains.

Try to stick to the point instead of going on obscenity laced rants and maybe we can have a discussion.

the point of it if you were not SO dense is that it is now morally WRONG to do the things God commands of you because it is NO longer socially acceptable

[pianodwarf]

If I might make an observation, here...

It appears to me that the two camps in this discussion are overlooking something.  Or maybe they're not, and it's just me.  Either way, though, an important distrinction to keep in mind is the same one found most commonly in discussions about linguistics and semantics: prescription and description.

Regarding objective morality, if you're talking about description, then there's nothing to discuss: there isn't an objective morality, and that's that.  The only area where there's room for debate is within the prescriptive field, and the debate there is whether prescription exists or not; the objective camp says yes, whereas the subjective camp says no.

I thought pointing this out might be helpful.

[gonegolfing]

 The prevailing wisdom of our time is that gay people ought not be married: 32 out of 32 states have had elections and decided the matter.  Our culture has spoken - it is good to deny marriage to gay people.

There you go again MiC ! ... Red Herring....Prevailing Wisdom ? Can you get any more disingenuous ? You know right well that the vast majority of the bigotry shown by homophobes to gay individuals has a religious basis....Don't deny it !

What is this religious bigotry based on ? the faults and fallacies of ancient tribal "wisdom".

What's actually being said by the religious: "It is good here in the 21 century to show bigotry towards and deny basic human rights to law abiding citizens who don't cling to the ancient principles and antiquated moral codes that I do".....Nice ! 

The only culture that is speaking on religionists behalf on this issue is the ancient culture of the Hebrews/Jews. They have no culture but that of a 3000 year old relic of one--from a tribe of nomads.

They should be ashamed of themselves for having such antiquated and bigoted beliefs. Their behaviour and thinking on this important issue is in fact immoral behaviour. Why ? Because it's a simple fact that they have not one good and logical reason to hold their opinions other than their own selfish and bigoted ideas. That's why. They cannot provide one rational reason to deny gays equal rights under the law and therefore they expose themselves to be the immoral and bigoted individuals that they are.

They have an abhorrant view of what being gay is and what that individuals character consists of that is gay, and would be lying to say that they have any positive feelings about gays at all. Their instructed by their holy book, which is far from "holy", to despise and punish gays, and through the law that is exactly what is trying to be accomplished. MiC your smugness and arrogance is obvious in your posts and you gloat in the fact that on occasion pernicious religious beliefs win out over moral human rights. ....This is the sure sign of an individual who has willingly given up their sense of moral rightness and allowed their minds to be seduced by harmful religious doctrines that make religionists to be  judgemental, controlling, morally weak, and instills in them a false sense of superiority over others.

Since there are no good reasons whatsoever to believe that a god exists external of the imagination, it is therefore then not a supposed god that despises gays, but religionists--the ones who have given their minds over to the reasoning's of ancient savages and nomads--the ones who have created god just the way they like it--the immoral ones, yes, they and their discrimination's and fears who despises gays and desires to deprive them of equal rights.

Religionists parade around as if its a judgement that is out of their hands and that they love people, and that they are only doing what the good book says to do, but the wiser know for a fact that it is they alone that despise gays and thus prove themselves to be bigoted and morally corrupt of their own making, and simply use the god-idea as a selfish means to violate and oppress those who think and act differently than they do.

Shame !


Edit: clarify a point.
   

[Add Homonym]

The only area where there's room for debate is within the prescriptive field, and the debate there is whether prescription exists or not; the objective camp says yes, whereas the subjective camp says no.

I don't think there is much difference between the two viewpoints, because the theists maintain that they know why morals exist - ie they can show 'workings' for why it is bad for single mothers to be crack whores, or why men shouldn't get married, even though neither case is discussed by the bible.

That is to say, if you go up to a Christian and ask them why it is bad for single mothers to be crack whores, they will tell you (at length) why, without just saying "I don't know. God says so."

The old opinion insists that the death penalty is really good, but the science is not sure about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, on crime rates, or its effects on society.

Here's a Christian arguing for the death penalty:
http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML
Sophisticated religious arguments, but look at the bottom line:

The swift death penalty deters crime and aids evangelism. Thus Christians, in obedience to God, should support the death penalty.

Through all his religious masturbation, the bottom line is that he believes the death penalty can be evaluated in an economic manner. IOW, he believes he can show workings that it produces societal happiness/productivity/efficiency.

I don't remember societal efficiency (utilitarianism) being discussed much in the bible, as a moral aim. Deuteronomy doesn't go into details on how to scientifically deduce whether morals should be followed. For a Christian, it works like this: if bible morals produce societal efficiency, we should follow them. If not, then God was wrong.

This is a newspaper article discussing whether the science shows the death penalty is productive:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all

“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”

In other words: the death penalty is moral, if we get economic output.

For morals to be truly "objective" (for the sake of this argument), you must not be able to show workings. They must be the unfathomable word of God. You must not back up your arguments with utilitarian logic. If you can reason the morality, then you have fairly proven that God was not needed to construct it.

[pianodwarf]

One other thing I forgot to point out, too, by the way -- and probably a much more important point -- is the "free will" angle.  There are some here who believe that man has absolutely no free will at all, that evyerthing we say, do, and so forth is completely deterministic.  If that's true[1], then ethics simply don't exist at all.

1.	and I'm not making a case for or against, here, I'm just being hypothetical

[MathIsCool]

Well there's a lot of you so I'm going to be brief.

First, JeffPT

Oh for for fuck's sake.  I am saying they are wrong IN MY OPINION and that in the future, cultures will NOT see those things as morally good.  Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Do you think raging profanity makes your points stronger or weaker?

Anyways, your post is another big contradiction.  In one place, speaking of cultures of the future, you write:

their morality will differ from ours in many ways.  And in that difference, they will feel the same smug superiority that we currently do when we look on in horror and disgust at cannibals and human sacrifices.  The truth, however, is that it simply changes over time.  There is no 'goal' for it.  There is no objectivity to it.

That's different from what you wrote before, where you positivly couldn't wait for the culture of the future without it's problems with gays, women's rights, racism, and circumcision.  Now there's no objectivity and it's all whatever, man.

Saying that though, you pivot directly into how awful I am for not thinking gay people should be able to get married.  But equal rights for all is just your opinion, isn't it?  It's all just a matter of taste, right?  If you like apple pie that's great, but why should I have to like apple pie just because you do?  Why do we all have to obey your insignificant tastes?  Quit trying to shove your morality down my throat!

You also try to provide some cover by saying things like "I think" and "In my Opinion."  That's cute.  Here, watch me!
I THINK that the current standard model of physics with it's 92 particles is probably an inaccurate description of morality.
IT's MY OPINION that factoring the product of two prime numbers can not be solved in polynomial time.
I THINK that there are no odd perfect numbers.
IT's MY OPINION that traveling on a closed timelike curve on a Lorentzian manifold is impossible.

When you say:

On a personal note, I THINK [the prohibition of gay marriage] should changed because I THINK it's wrong.

You're I THINK (even though it's in all caps!) doesn't provide you as much cover as you think it does.  The operative phrase in that sentence is still "it's wrong," proving you really do belive in objective morality.

Oh, and by the way: Sex Trafficking is not "incredibly rare."  It is in fact tragically common - millions of girls every year are abducted, brutally beaten and gang-raped into submission, and forced into prostitution.  This is a malignant cancer on our world, a brutal, ugly, demonic ugliness, a tragic brokenness that must itself be broken.  Denying this is inherently evil is as wrong as saying 2+2=5.

Timo
This post is about objective morality.  I brought up gay marriage because I knew Jeff would feel passionately about it and get him to betray his belief in objective morality.  Your post demonstrates you too believe in objective morality:

But all that's neither here nor there.  I think that, as a legal question, this isn't something that can be settled by a majority vote.  It's a question of civil rights.  In other words, my problem with denying same-sex partners the right to marry isn't that I think that doing so is immoral (though I have no problem saying that I think it is)

Exactly.  Some things are wrong.  You think denying same-sex partners the right to marry is one of them.  I disagree with you, but at least we can agree on the fact that some things are right, and some things are wrong.

Rustybeatz, of course I think fairness is a virtue.  I was pointing out that Jeff also think it's a virtue, and he has demonstrated multiple times that he think it's an objective virtue, and not a matter of taste.

Add Homonym, you only talk about gay marriage and how awful the bible is, not objective morality.  See my comments to Timo above.
This thread is about objective morality.  I get that you guys feel passionately about gay marriage, I'm trying to get you to see that this thing you feel passionately about betrays that you believe in objective morality, i.e., some things really are wrong.  (And in your opinion, intolerant homophobic bigoted hatemongering behavior is one of them)

Oh, but you do say "based on the premise that we should be nice to people, for our society to flourish."  Another example of objective morality.

Anfauglir
Let me just say, you're a breath of fresh air.
That being said, I have to take issue with your point.  You say,

Indeed, that would be the crux of any system of morality for me - that what's right for me is right for you, and what's wrong for you is wrong for me too.

This is exactly what a subjective system of morality denies, and what an objective system of morality affirms!

Screwtape,
If the statement "only beliefs that can be backed up by evidence are true" is true, that what evidence can you provide to back up your statement?  Evidentialism is self-defeating.

12 Monkeys,
I disagree.  Marks for the lack of profanity, next time provide some argumentation instead of bare assertion

piandodwarf
I'm not sure I follow, but if am following you correctly, I think I agree with you.  Are you in the objective camp or the subjective camp, as you define them?

And finally gonegolfing,
Your post was fun.  I think I'll just repeat it, pointing out (via bold letters) where you, too, clearly believe in objective morality:

There you go again MiC ! ... Red Herring....Prevailing Wisdom ? Can you get any more disingenuous ? You know right well that the vast majority of the bigotry shown by homophobes to gay individuals has a religious basis....Don't deny it !

What is this religious bigotry based on ? the faults and fallacies of ancient tribal "wisdom".

What's actually being said by the religious: "It is good here in the 21 century to show bigotry towards and deny basic human rights to law abiding citizens who don't cling to the ancient principles and antiquated moral codes that I do".....Nice ! 

The only culture that is speaking on religionists behalf on this issue is the ancient culture of the Hebrews/Jews. They have no culture but that of a 3000 year old relic of one--from a tribe of nomads.

They should be ashamed of themselves for having such antiquated and bigoted beliefs. Their behaviour and thinking on this important issue is in fact immoral behaviour. Why ? Because it's a simple fact that they have not one good and logical reason to hold their opinions other than their own selfish and bigoted ideas. That's why. They cannot provide one rational reason to deny gays equal rights under the law and therefore they expose themselves to be the immoral and bigoted individuals that they are.

They have an abhorrant view of what being gay is and what that individuals character consists of that is gay, and would be lying to say that they have any positive feelings about gays at all. Their instructed by their holy book, which is far from "holy", to despise and punish gays, and through the law that is exactly what is trying to be accomplished. MiC your smugness and arrogance is obvious in your posts and you gloat in the fact that on occasion pernicious religious beliefs win out over moral human rights. ....This is the sure sign of an individual who has willingly given up their sense of moral rightness and allowed their minds to be seduced by harmful religious doctrines that make religionists to be judgemental, controlling, morally weak, and instills in them a false sense of superiority over others.

Since there are no good reasons whatsoever to believe that a god exists external of the imagination, it is therefore then not a supposed god that despises gays, but religionists--the ones who have given their minds over to the reasoning's of ancient savages and nomads--the ones who have created god just the way they like it--the immoral ones, yes, they and their discrimination's and fears who despises gays and desires to deprive them of equal rights.

Religionists parade around as if its a judgement that is out of their hands and that they love people, and that they are only doing what the good book says to do, but the wiser know for a fact that it is they alone that despise gays and thus prove themselves to be bigoted and morally corrupt of their own making, and simply use the god-idea as a selfish means to violate and oppress those who think and act differently than they do.

Shame !


Edit: clarify a point.
 

[JeffPT]

First, JeffPT

Oh for for fuck's sake.  I am saying they are wrong IN MY OPINION and that in the future, cultures will NOT see those things as morally good.  Jesus fucking Christ dude.

Do you think raging profanity makes your points stronger or weaker?

In this case, my profanity is an expression of frustration.  I honestly don't care how you take it.  It's not meant to change the validity of my point, just to express my frustration at how thick you are being. 

Anyways, your post is another big contradiction.  In one place, speaking of cultures of the future, you write:

their morality will differ from ours in many ways.  And in that difference, they will feel the same smug superiority that we currently do when we look on in horror and disgust at cannibals and human sacrifices.  The truth, however, is that it simply changes over time.  There is no 'goal' for it.  There is no objectivity to it.

That's different from what you wrote before, where you positivly couldn't wait for the culture of the future without it's problems with gays, women's rights, racism, and circumcision.  Now there's no objectivity and it's all whatever, man.

Stop doing that.  Just stop it.  You know damn well that's not what I'm doing and I've corrected you on it at several points.  Yes I can't wait for the culture of the future where human rights don't stop where color, gender and sexual orientation differ.  Why do you keep saying this is an objective statement?  It's not!  Not at all.  It is, again, my opinion.  What the hell is wrong with you?  Why can't you see that and admit its what I'm saying to you.  This is why I go to profanity.  I've explained this over and over again.  I am not making an objective statement!  I am saying this is what I personally want. 

Saying that though, you pivot directly into how awful I am for not thinking gay people should be able to get married.

Now, lets ask ourselves why I am doing that...  Why would I think you are awful for not supporting gay marriage?  Might it be my opinion on the matter is different from yours? Might it be that I support gay marriage and you don't?  Might it be that I can't see a reason to deny them their rights, and you can?   Walk yourself through it slowly if you have to.  That's all there is to it.  I am not trying to claim that you are objectively right or that I am objectively right. 

But equal rights for all is just your opinion, isn't it?

Yes.  It just so happens to be supported by lots of people.  Just not religious people. 

It's all just a matter of taste, right?

Yes.

If you like apple pie that's great, but why should I have to like apple pie just because you do? 

Excellent point.  You shouldn't have to.  And you also shouldn't have to support gay marriage.  I just think you're an ass if you don't. 

Why do we all have to obey your insignificant tastes?  Quit trying to shove your morality down my throat!

You don't have to obey my tastes.  If you don't like my opinions, go fuck yourself.  I don't care.  But it's not me that's claiming that there is an objective right or wrong in the universe.  It's you.  And with that claim, it is YOU that tries to shove your shit down other people's throats. 

I'm entitled to think you're an ass hole for your opinions, and that religion is horrible for the world based on the differences between my moral views and yours. 

You also try to provide some cover by saying things like "I think" and "In my Opinion." 

And this is why I use the profanity.  It's not cover.  It's the truth. 

When you say:

On a personal note, I THINK [the prohibition of gay marriage] should changed because I THINK it's wrong.

You're I THINK (even though it's in all caps!) doesn't provide you as much cover as you think it does.  The operative phrase in that sentence is still "it's wrong," proving you really do belive in objective morality.

/sigh.  No.  You're just not getting this. 

When I say "I think strawberries are awesome" am I pointing to any sort of objective measure, MiC?  Do I need to have an objective standard to point to in order to formulate that opinion?  How about when I say "I think green is the best color"?  Does there have to be an objectively 'best' color in order for you to understand what I am trying to say there?  There is no difference between those statements than for "I think gays should be allowed to marry."  None at all.  Get it through your head. 

We've been over this and over this with you in the past.  You're just so wrong.  And it's so freakin' frustrating.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously.  What are you not getting?  How much clearer can I be? 

[screwtape]

Screwtape,
If the statement "only beliefs that can be backed up by evidence are true" is true, that what evidence can you provide to back up your statement?  Evidentialism is self-defeating.

eh, no.  I didn't say that.  I have no idea what "evidentialism" is, capitalized or not.  I would ask you to explain what that was how it relates to my point, but it looks like a red herring to me.  If not, then by all means... 

If I were to correct you, I would say, it is bad policy to believe anything without sufficient evidence.  My evidence for that would be mermaids, Odin, WMDs and Iran's nuclear program.

So, no way to know what those objective morals are then?

[pianodwarf]

I have no idea what "evidentialism"

Evidentialism is what post-modernists call the idea that beliefs are only justified if there is evidence to support them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism

This has come up on my atheism podcasts on occasion.  It appears that one of the few things that believers and atheists generally agree on is that we both tend to have little patience with post-modernity, and this kind of thing is a good demonstration (though far from the only one) of why we feel that way: the very use of the term "evidentialism" presupposes that there are other approaches to belief, all of them equally valid.