Besides, who cares what some prepubescent troll has to say? I'm sooner concerned with how my cat looks at me.

 What Does Sugar Have To Do With Murder?!

In my continuing quest to see just how many theists can totally ignore my writing... here you go.

I thought this person wanted to attack atheism but I guess they only wanted to attack consequentialism on the basis that it's relativistic. That's kind of bizarre because a more absolutist approach is no less problematic. If you say that lying is wrong regardless of the consequences,  it's possible to have a situation where failure to tell a lie may cause an innocent person's death. If causing an innocent persons death is also wrong regardless of the consequences then you have an intractable problem.

I think the real problem is that he's trying to reduce consequentialism to the level of a personal preference, when a moral judgment is not a mere preference because it must be supported by good reasons. Utilitarianism in theory and practice has been proven a sound moral theory.

Problem: This definition contains a hidden premise. 'Ought' is synonymous with 'Should', and there are pages upon pages of reading material available as to why simply asking 'Should', on it's own, leads us down the road of fallacious reasoning.

That anyone ought not to do because...?
 

No. I think it is sickening because the thought of the act literally turns my stomach (makes me feel 'sick'). I think people shouldn't perform such an act if they wish to continue being a part of human society.

I answered this question already. Please do not merely ignore people's posts and continue posing the same question over and over again like a broken record. If you don't like the answer, fine - come-up with a counter argument or agree to disagree and leave the issue as ignorant as when you walked into it.

There's no such thing as a 'consequentialist' anymore than there is a 'Darwinist'. I'm relaying to you what I know of the science of morality.

This is a moronic line of reasoning. Foremostly, no - there isn't any conceivable way for a species to evolve into a successful society when murder & violence happen on a whim. Any animal with such tendencies would immediately become extinct through self-destruction.

Even if there somehow were a possibility for this to occur, what the Hell difference would it make? It's not what's happened here. You're acting as though if killing someone can't be considered completely and totally universally 'wrong', then murder and rape should be okay. This is a delusional non-sequitor.

This is somewhat correct, thought you should substitute out 'society' for 'species' (or maybe even 'genes'). What's more? We can and have empirically proven this (in controlled laboratory settings and elsewhere). Moral and ethical standards are created by positive and negative reinforcement patterns (a huge, branching chain stretching all the way back to the initial stirrings of life), some of which are now literally encoded in us at the genetic level.

Imbecile. You've just posited a scenario that is not possible in order to try and support your conclusion. This is like arguing, 'If in some universe, 2+2 = 5, then our mathematical standards are wrong'.

Qualify that bold part, would you? In what way is the universe shaped by us far more than we are shaped by it?

It almost seems like you are confusing environmental conservation with human evolution.

You 'responded' by simply posing the same damn question over again! Acting like a broken record is not the same thing as arguing (contrary to the typical theist model of debate).

'Flawed' in what way? Because ours doesn't make some unreasonable and laughable demand for an absolute universal answer to a complex question?

Bravo. You've proven to yourself that, yes indeed, science once again proves to yield the real answers to our most pertinent questions.

Enjoy the sermon tomorrow. Don't forget to be extra-generous when that collection plate comes rolling around.

First, violence being 'wrong' is most definately not an axiom. Please don't just make things up.

Second, why is it included as a just course of action in the Bible if it is universally & axiomatically wrong? And - if it's an axiom - that certainly gives us a problem with God, doesn't it? Axioms aren't discretionary - God is actively engaged in this 'wrong' activity (quite a paradox, since by your own standard, he would have set the universal rights and wrongs to begin with).

The only way we can pursue this course of thought is through doublethink (as has been demonstrated so often in the past).

Everyone is a 'moral relativist' (including yourself).

Morality isn't 'objective'. We can even see this is your example!

Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Consequentially, they had war declared on them. The upper hierarchy of the Nazi leadership order the genocide of Hebrews. Consequentially, they were tried at Nuremburg and put to death (or they were forced into hiding). Germany overextended itself and did not spend it's resources or manpower wisely. Consequentially, they lost the war. Etc.

Yes, chuck, in a world of cause & effect, it is logically necessary for certain results to follow certain conditions. And no, there are no 'universal truths'. What's your point?

You're a liar. Apparently believing in 'universal right & wrong' hasn't cured you of that, hm?

John Wayne Gacy's brain was examined by a single forensic psychiatrist, hired by Mr. Gacy's own lawyers, who did not have his findings peer-reviewed anywhere. This happened back in 1994, so neuroscience wasn't exactly where it is today.

Untrue. We know have a comprehensive collection of evidence that various traits will lead to sociopathy, and we certainly see trends when we look at behavior patterns.

The only one making unfounded 'assumptions' here is yourself.

What a crock of shit.

First, sociopaths are not 'crazy'. They simple have different chemical dominances than you or I. Second, arguing that 'they still might not find any differences' is strictly an argument from ignorance.

Translation: Ignore every piece of contemporary research, because the only way to the truth is to dogmatically refer to a single instance over a decade old that doesn't directly refute my assertions.

Non sequitor.

You're a retard. You're posing 'what ifs' as though they can be used to factually support your conclusions.

Gacy was not studied while he was alive with modern imaging technology. How do I know?

The technology didn't even exist in 1994!

The morals of society really do and are made from our experiences as a society as a whole. What you posted would be morally wrong by any society that we live in currently. Now has killing someone has been considered socially wrong pretty much since the beginning of civilization, as we have found ancient laws against killing (of course there are societies which have circumstances which this is an exception, such as self defense). Being that we are social creatures and for the most part require others for our survival, killing members of our society would have negative consequences, especially in cases of thrill kills, which pretty much sounds what you described. Which could lead to retribution killing, which then your family may seek murder to those that killed you and it goes back and forth till that society/tribe maybe left with little survival chances.

Now our morals have changed over the time. For example having slaves was considered morally fine all throughout Europe, Asia, and the Americas, now, it's not morally ok. Duels where considered morally fine for retribution of an insult, now, not so much. Marrying girls at age 12 was ok, now, that gets you jail time. As you see our morals change over time, even cruelty towards an animal (An interlude in the 16 and 17th century theaters in various parts of Europe, was to lower a cat on a rope slowly into a fire pit on stage, as people in the audience would laugh at the pain inflicted on the cat, of course it was thought that animals didn't feel pain). Now even though social morals have changed certain ones haven't, and are pretty much considered universal per se, such as killing, kidnapping, torturing and raping, although some societies do have exceptions to these morals/rules.

Of course we as a society have both "universal" and "relative" morals, these as done us well as we have been able to flourish as a society/civilization. Although some may not think it is perfect or ok, it has and is working for us humans.

Well, Chuck, let me ask you a few things:

Assuming you are a moral absolutist, do you feel it is wrong to kill someone? If so, without resorting to 'God said so', can you tell me why it is wrong to kill someone? What if they're trying to kill you?

Are you a pacifist, or is it morally permissible for a soldier to kill an enemy during a war? Why are they exempted from the moral proscription against killing?

If moral absolutism is a reflection of God's directives, why do so many churches these days frown on killing the unborn by stoning their adulterous mothers to death?

If moral absolutism doesn't depend on God's directives, then what acts would you consider absolutely wrong under all circumstances, and why?

No, it isn't.

When translating latin to english, many vowel phonemes may be represented by any numer of letters because latin (like any language) doesn't translate over to english perfectly in terms of pronunciation. 'u' is as appropriate as 'o' is as appropriate as 'i', in this case.

Thanks for playing, though.

Wow. What a fucktard. Jesus most likely never even existed. Sin is a primitive concept unworthy of modern civilized humans.

Is the Christian concept of absolute morals the reason they are so obsessed with abortion?

You know what the best thing about debating with atheists is?  They make the same arguments over and over and over.  They don't read anything, they simply go into full robotic mode and spout of stock phrases like "if everything needs a creator, then who created God?".... and that makes my life easier because then I barely have to type anything new.  To demonstrate this, I'm going to respond to our friend Hermit by just pasting things that I've previously written in this thread.

No, I never said any of these things.

I'd like for you to answer the question.

I never even mentioned God, but obviously you want to take yourself off the hot seat.  I understand, but I'm not going to let you.

I'm already aware of how we learn our morals.  The question is not regarding the genesis of knowledge.  It is regarding the justification of knowledge.  What justification can you give me for the truth value of the moral claims that you espouse?  Is it just based on what you believe will benefit society in the long run?

It exposes the holes in your moral framework, which is why you don't appreciate it.  You know that if the situation presented itself and one was to follow your moral guidelines, you could conceivably be justifying murder and rape.  I am able to bring up the hypothetical situations because in fact, they are not logical impossibilities. Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "That couldn't happen!  That couldn't happen!"... you should stop and ask yourself some really important questions about the moral laws that you take for granted.

If some action can be shown to have no harmful consequences, ie no one suffers pain or distress, and there is no evidence that it disrupts society in ways that the members of that society object to, then there is no justification for calling it 'wrong'.

If a few people find it distressing, then it would reasonably require that some modest benefit be shown to result from the action to offset that concern.

The more mixed the consequences, the more need to balance the positive and negative consequences.

And what precisely is wrong with judging a course of action by its consequences, as long as those consequences are examined thoroughly? What other approach is defensible?

You still don't get it.

If morals are relative, there is no "final justification." Scary, huh? Especially when you start with the presupposition that morality is perfect and comes from your God, whom, by the way, enjoys smashing babies against rocks, but hates shrimp.  

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must withdraw to my original preoccupation of torturing a five year old transexual with a lighter.

Is this projection?  Anyway Why should I make a new argument for things you have yet to refute.  That is like saying you keep answering 4 to the question of 2 + 2 no matter how many times I have ask the question.  I think its funny that you think you don't need to justify a uncreated creator, but want us to justify a uncreated matter/energy universe.

Morals are justified through society. Without a society or without a group to belong too what is there to be moral toward?  Morals only come into play when we speak of more than an individual.  The justification comes in the continued success of the society.  Those acts that provide for a more successful society are considered more moral than those that hinder the society from growth.

Following this the only question to ask it what will benefit society.  If we allowed for murder and rape, many members of society would feel threatened, they could either fight back or leave the society.  If the fight back the numbers of the society dwindle,  if they leave the number of members in the society dwindle.  So a more fit society is one who prohibits said actions.  This does not negate many people have strong feelings that said actions are wrong.  We are using our empathy and other traits to actually feel for the member of our society.  Just as when creatures were evolving they had the desire protect ourselves, we now protect our fellow members of society.  Our biological and social needs give us desires for said society because it makes us (society) better suited for survival. 

Society defines its morals. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

I understand that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but a hundred squeaky wheels that gang up on you at the same time? 

I'll choose one person that I'll respond to later on.  It will either be Bob Spence (because anyone who resembles Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull deserves a response) or Magus (because like me, he was clearly the creepy kid who could not get dates in high school).

Anyway, I have to go to work.  See you later.

MOD EDIT: Chuck, spamming is against the forum code of conduct. Posting responses that are nothing more than '.' is spam. Shape-up or shut-up.

 - Kevin R Brown

There is no such thing as objective morality, and any attempt to create such a system necessarily results in nothing more than an arbitrary set of rules that can't be uniformly applied in any case. This is because actions without consequences cannot have moral consequences.

As defined, an immoral act is something which ought not be done, and this is determined by the consequences of the action. An action with negative consequences is something that ought not be done, and so by the very definition of morality, the determination of an action's morality requires a determination of its consequences. The question of 'what is a negative consequence?' necessarily creates an issue subjective to individuals, but this is not surprising. There is no morality without human interaction. Is it immoral for a wolf to eat a sheep? This subjective element of determination of the morality of action does not preclude the objective application of morality, however, and it is only in that sense that an "objective morality" has any meaning.

Confusion arises from the mistake of not labeling endangerment as an affirmative act. That is, despite the fact that a specific action may have no real harmful consequences, actively endangering another is still a potential negative consequence of an action, which would render it immoral.

Furthermore, the examples you provide in an attempt to demonstrate situations that are "objectively" immoral rely on what are essentially tautologies. Your examples of rape and torture make use of words that incorporate the negative consequences of actions within the definitions themselves. Rape and torture necessarily have negative consequences, and so to say that there is no time such acts could be moral is akin to saying "there is no way to illegally kill someone in a legal way." If a person consents to rape or torture, then the act would not actually be rape or torture under the common uses of the words (i.e. "I enjoy being hurt" is not the same as "I enjoy being tortured" under common usage, as, since torture is necessarily unejoyable, it would be saying "I enjoy things I don't enjoy")

In one sense in it may be meaningful to assign a 'true' or 'false' value to that statement within the context of a particular set of assumed values, because you use the verb 'ought'.

Actually,  it really is a simple tautology, since 'rape' and 'murder' are by definition 'wrong'.

But I guess I know what you are trying to express:

The principle that doing something to another person which they clearly object to, which is not in any way to their ultimate benefit (just to exclude medical or other therapeutic procedures which cause someone temporary unavoidable pain and/or distress in the process of treatment), or is not seen as the only way to prevent a greater harm, such as restraining a would-be killer,  should be actively discouraged, should not be problematic.

Since 'murder' and 'rape' are acts which are by definition committed against the victims wishes, of course they are wrong, whereas 'mercy killing', or 'assisted suicide', also involve causing or assisting the death of another person, are not automatically 'wrong'.

And of course, consensual sexual acts are also not automatically 'wrong' either, unlike rape.

Actually I don't think the 'destruction of society' would be an appropriate justification for declaring something 'morally wrong'. It is conceivable, in the same philosophical sense you already have defined, that virtually everyone in that society has decided to let the society die, and is 'happy' with that, then that is their decision, and I don't see we have any basis to declare their decision 'wrong' in an ethical sense, although we might think it ill-advised.

I am not sure what if any universal guidelines for ethical conduct could apply to all conceivable (in the philosphical sense) societies. If we find some aspect of a very different society 'morally' objectionable, I think that would be arguably an example of true 'moral relativism', ie based on our culture and world-view.

The sort of thing which I personally think comes closest to being a universal moral rule is 'unjustifiable coercion', as I discussed earlier. Especially if we pull back from the wilder fantasies of philosophy.

If some individuals within a society are being abused in some way, without their consent, with no apparent adequately demonstrable longer term benefit to them, I would have serious concerns about the 'morality' of such a society. So I don't see morality as truly arbitrary.

I should finally make it clear that I see no point in discussing 'morality' in anything beyond the contexts I have discussed here. Regarding further 'philosophical' discussion, read my sig.

You see, I see 'moraiity', our sense of 'right' and 'wrong', as deeply, but not wholly, subjective, and even the feeling that many people, such as yourself, share, that it must be, or 'should' be, based on some external absolutes, is itself a personal subjective judgement.