Does "RIGHT & WRONG" mean anything, without God or Religion?

[Lumpenproletariat]

We can prove something is "wrong" or "evil" etc., just as we can prove that some event happened in history.

And those who disagree and say it's OK to burn Black churches or torture someone or fly airplanes into buildings etc. are just wrong. They can be proved wrong the same as if they say Lincoln was the first President.

Okay. Let's go with that. Prove that it's objectively wrong to, say, burn down a black community's church.
That it's not just a subjective opinion, no matter how many people agree with you.

Show the evidence, rather than just keep asserting that it's an obvious fact. Can you do that?

I really doubt that you can, and worry that you cannot understand the difference.

Of course it can be proved. In the same sense that "Washington was the first President" can be proved.

There is pain to the owners or members, and there is no benefit to anyone else which possibly equals the amount of pain, or which can offset that pain.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

Though there is not the necessary scientific equipment to accurately measure the suffering or pain to someone vs. the quantity of pleasure to another, this does not mean we cannot reasonably estimate these amounts. If we cannot make such reasonable estimates and comparisons, then we also cannot reasonably conclude that Washington was the first President. It's possible he was not.

Prove with certainty that Washington was the first President. You can't do it anymore than you can prove with certainty that there's more harm than benefit resulting from a church bombing or other such act. But we can prove these to better than 99.9% probability at least when the evidence is overwhelming. It's only when the evidence is ambiguous that there is uncertainty. And many cases are ambiguous, but you can't extrapolate from this to conclude that ALL cases are ambiguous, as you're trying to do here.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We can prove whether something that happened was "evil" or not.

I don't know whether 'Right' and 'Wrong' mean anything; But it is demonstrable that whatever the answer is, it is independent of Gods or Religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

So IF 'Right' and 'Wrong' are meaningful, they are meaningful without reference to Gods or religions. And IF 'Right' and 'Wrong' are NOT meaningful, adding a God or religion changes nothing.

This has been known for at least 2,400 years. It is a long dead argument, and it is pointless to rehash it here.

This has been known for at least 2,400 years. It is a long dead argument, and it is pointless to rehash it here.

But Lumpy LIVES for pointless rehashing.

It's not pointless. (Though you could argue that message boards like this are pointless, because all this arguing serves no practical purpose.)

Our understanding that crimes cause harm and should be prevented is a premise upon which criminal prosecutions are based. Likewise damage lawsuits. It has to be proved that harm took place in these cases, so evidence is presented to demonstrate the harm done, i.e., the "evil" perpetrated against someone who was victimized. But if "evil" cannot be proved, then there is no basis for ever prosecuting criminals or holding lawsuit trials.

In the extreme case of Nazi atrocities, whether some Germans even today think these crimes were OK by some kind of logic, certainly many of them changed their mind about it after the War when they were forced to observe some of the conditions in the camps and witness the harm that had been inflicted. (Some Germans were taken by force to the camps to see what had happened.)

When someone who thinks the evil going on is OK is forced to see the harm, or is confronted with the evidence, then they start changing their mind. Even if all do not, many of them do begin to regret it. So there is a change of thinking, which likely will result in less of the same kind of evil being perpetrated in the future.

But what if you say, "Oh, no one is right or wrong. There's no way to prove it one way or the other." Or

It seems pretty speculative, since there are so many different definitions.

I.e., "it's just this guy's subjective opinion vs. the other guy's feelings." Meaning there's really no "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" but only this one subjective feeling vs. another.

If that's true, then what's the point in showing someone the "evidence" of the harm done? Why require those who allowed it to happen go there to witness what happened? Why require anyone to see the harmful results, or witness it, or learn about it? If all that evidence proves nothing, because there's no real "evil" or "good" that can ever be proved, then what's the point in making someone view the evidence and being confronted with the gruesome details of what happened?

So, recognizing that the harm can be proved, because it's an objective provable fact, leads to acts that are appropriate to take for reducing the risk of the same thing happening in the future. Whereas if no such harm can be proved, because it's all subjective, then there's no reason to take any steps to prevent the same thing from ever happening in the future.

If you can't prove, or give evidence, that an "evil" took place, how can you get people to change their mind by having them see that evidence in order to persuade them? If that's not genuine evidence that an "evil" happened, then it won't make any difference in that person's mind who is confronted with that evidence. Nor is there any legitimate point in trying to change their mind, if it's all subjective opinion only, with no objective right/wrong or good/evil which can be proved with evidence.

 

[bigfield]

Okay. Let's go with that. Prove that it's objectively wrong to, say, burn down a black community's church.
That it's not just a subjective opinion, no matter how many people agree with you.

Show the evidence, rather than just keep asserting that it's an obvious fact. Can you do that?

I really doubt that you can, and worry that you cannot understand the difference.

There is pain to the owners or members, and there is no benefit to anyone else which possibly equals the amount of pain, or which can offset that pain.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

This is still based on the subjective axiom that inflicting suffering is morally wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course it can be proved. In the same sense that "Washington was the first President" can be proved.

There is pain to the owners or members, and there is no benefit to anyone else which possibly equals the amount of pain, or which can offset that pain.

Oh! You can objectively measure pain?

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Whoa, foul. You've shifted from just burning down a church to the motive of the person doing it. That's not objective, then.
If it's objectively wrong to burn down a black church, it would ALWAYS be wrong to burn down a black church, regardless of the motives.
Can members of a black church burn it down for the insurance if the money is going to be used for a charity they all feel strongly about?

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

So, you acknowledge that some people may disagree, but you're still crafting a subjective evaluation of the act.

Though there is not the necessary scientific equipment to accurately measure the suffering or pain

I'm not even asking for scientific accuracy, i'm asking for an objective means of measurement.

And you're still subjective in preferring pleasure over suffering. Doesn't suffering make us stronger? That's what the President said after the shooting in the church.

to someone vs. the quantity of pleasure to another, this does not mean we cannot reasonably estimate these amounts.

You just need to provide some measurement system that isn't a subjective estimate of the amounts in order to prove you're making an objective evaluation.
If a kid falls down a flight of stairs and sees Bugs Bunny blow Daffy Duck up with dynamite, he's going to say that the suffering of the stair-fall is greater.

So, no, you're failing, here.

If we cannot make such reasonable estimates and comparisons, then we also cannot reasonably conclude that Washington was the first President. It's possible he was not.

Same old Lumpy... You cannot provide an objective measurement of suffering, or an objective standard for not burning down a church, so you compare it to something dissimilar and shift the burden of proof to your critic as a distraction.

"My claim is just as good as any claim of history!" you pretend. "Unless YOU can do my homework..."

Well, if that's the best you have, and it's the same process you've been flogging in the 'reject christainity' thread, I'll just assume you've conceded defeat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Our understanding that crimes cause harm and should be prevented is a premise upon which criminal prosecutions are based. Likewise damage lawsuits. It has to be proved that harm took place in these cases, so evidence is presented to demonstrate the harm done, i.e., the "evil" perpetrated against someone who was victimized. But if "evil" cannot be proved, then there is no basis for ever prosecuting criminals or holding lawsuit trials.

Wrong.
Humans create laws. they're subjective.
They list behaviors we condone or prohibit. But they can change, because that's subjective.
Human laws once protected the rights of slave owners, Lumpy. If slavery is objectively wrong, then comparing that to the human legal system is a doomed premise.

None of this is objective.

We try to establish in court that what we define as harm was committed, and we also place a value on the intentions of the perpetrator, which we try to establish in court. That's why there are so many different words for 'taking a human life' in our legal system.
If taking a human life was objectively wrong, then intent would not matter, and we would not treat murder, manslaughter, self-defense, accidents, cops at a crime, and soldiers at war differently when examining their actions.

So, try again? Can you provide positive evidence that good and evil are objective qualities?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But Lumpy LIVES for pointless rehashing.

It's not pointless. (Though you could argue that message boards like this are pointless, because all this arguing serves no practical purpose.)

By 'pointless rehashing' i refer to your throwing up logical fallacies, and using the same fallacy again after it's been identified as a fallacy. False dichotomy, argument from consequences, shifting the burden of proof...
Hundreds of pages of fallacies and repeated falsehoods is pointless rehashing, Lumpy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay. Let's go with that. Prove that it's objectively wrong to, say, burn down a black community's church.
That it's not just a subjective opinion, no matter how many people agree with you.

Show the evidence, rather than just keep asserting that it's an obvious fact. Can you do that?

I really doubt that you can, and worry that you cannot understand the difference.

Of course it can be proved. In the same sense that "Washington was the first President" can be proved.

Ever heard the saying "Don't believe everything you think."?

The United States became a country in 1781. George Washington became President in 1789. Do the math. Washington was the first President under the current Constitution. The U.S. had an earlier Constitution, called "The Articles of Confederation"; several people were President under that Constitution from 1781 to 1788. The first was Samuel Huntington.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Should everyone who uses the phrase "morally wrong" be deprogrammed, because that phrase is meaningless?

Okay. Let's go with that. Prove that it's objectively wrong to, say, burn down a black community's church.

Of course it can be proved. In the same sense that "Washington was the first President" can be proved.

There is pain to the owners or members, and there is no benefit to anyone else which possibly equals the amount of pain, or which can offset that pain.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

This is still based on the subjective axiom that inflicting suffering is morally wrong.

What's wrong with that axiom? Is "morally wrong" a meaningless term? If inflicting suffering per se isn't "morally wrong," then what's an example of something that IS "morally wrong"?

 

[bilby]

Of course it can be proved. In the same sense that "Washington was the first President" can be proved.

There is pain to the owners or members, and there is no benefit to anyone else which possibly equals the amount of pain, or which can offset that pain.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

This is still based on the subjective axiom that inflicting suffering is morally wrong.

What's wrong with that axiom? Is "morally wrong" a meaningless term? If inflicting suffering per se isn't "morally wrong," then what's an example of something that IS "morally wrong"?

Morality is a matter of consensus. Something is morally wrong if society says so. Different societies draw the lines in different places; different groups within a society may have differing morals.

The Bible makes it very clear that slavery is not morally wrong, as long as it is done by the book.

The US Government made it very clear that slavery is morally wrong, and even fought a war to prevent the secession of those states that didn't agree.

Whether you agree with the Bible or the US Government is a function of which of those authorities you prefer. Choose wisely though, because society will not hesitate to use force to impose its values on you. A person who helps escaped slaves in the ante-bellum South, and a person who keeps slaves in the modern USA both risk arrest and incarceration (or worse).

The phrase "X is morally wrong" means "X is morally wrong in my current society and culture"; the qualifiers are usually dropped for the sake of brevity.

People with a narrow worldview could easily mistake their cultural norms for universal truths; but that's just shortsightedness. Those people should get out more and find out about the world outside their own heads.

 

[bigfield]

What's wrong with that axiom? Is "morally wrong" a meaningless term? If inflicting suffering per se isn't "morally wrong," then what's an example of something that IS "morally wrong"?

The problem is that it is a subjective belief.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Just because pain and pleasure are difficult to measure doesn't mean we can't estimate and compare them.

Oh! You can objectively measure pain?

We can estimate it, yes. Just because it's difficult to measure doesn't mean it's impossible.

E.g., suppose you stub your toe -- that causes you some pain, right?

Next day you have an operation and they have to stick a catheter in you -- Ouch!

Can't we reasonably measure, i.e., ESTIMATE, that the pain of the latter is somewhat greater? Of course we can measure it. When the difference is large enough there's no problem. But when it's a small difference between this pain and that one, then it's more difficult.

Just like measuring pounds or inches. It can be difficult when the quantities are almost equal.

You can estimate the weight without the scale, can't you? This is a legitimate kind of measurement. Just not as precise.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Whoa, foul. You've shifted from just burning down a church to the motive of the person doing it. That's not objective, then.

No, it's the same. We can measure the pain and also the pleasure. The pleasure of a real good orgasm is greater than that of scratching an itch. If the difference is great enough we can measure that difference, i.e., ESTIMATE it.

And the pleasure of the one who inflicts the pain has to be compared to the pain or displeasure to those who suffer.

Just as we can judge that the extra-good orgasm gives more pleasure than scratching an itch, we can also judge that the loss of pleasure to the church members is greater than the pleasure gained by those who burned down the church.

If it's objectively wrong to burn down a black church, it would ALWAYS be wrong to burn down a black church, regardless of the motives.

It's not the motives per se, but the pleasure vs. pain that determines whether something is right or wrong. If the perpetrator has innocent intentions but is still inflicting harm, then it's still "wrong" -- it's the "evil" result which determines if it was wrong, not the motive.

Whether it's "ALWAYS" wrong depends on whether the suffering inflicted is ALWAYS greater than the pleasure produced by inflicting it. And we have to estimate the TOTAL pleasure and TOTAL pain caused, to everyone who is impacted by the act. So the estimate must be broad enough to include ALL who are pained or pleasured by the act.

Can members of a black church burn it down for the insurance if the money is going to be used for a charity they all feel strongly about?

We can speculate about the amount of total pleasure/pain to society generally about many such scenarios. If it results in greater total pain/suffering/cost to everyone affected than pleasure to those who benefit, then it's wrong. And it's not always easy to make the estimates.

But committing fraud which is costly to society is usually "wrong" because of the net harm to everyone.

We can pose many hypothetical scenarios: How about torturing someone for entertainment, and some of the ticket sale receipts go to a worthy cause, to feed starving children. If we put enough qualifiers to this, it might become acceptable in some cases. What if the torture victim agrees to being tortured? In some cases the estimates of the total net pleasure/pain are difficult.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

So, you acknowledge that some people may disagree, but you're still crafting a subjective evaluation of the act.

Generally, the one who thinks it's good to commit such an act is incorrect to not realize the pain caused to the ones who suffer from it. However, if this one is a pure sadist who delights in the pain of those others, then he just has to be suppressed. In some social situations it could be necessary to eliminate sadists, if they cannot be corrected. But in most cases they can be suppressed or even corrected so that they stop desiring to inflict pain.

Or they can suppress their own sadistic desire, realizing that the pleasure they would gain is less than the displeasure they would inflict.

A person who has a sadistic sex drive might suppress that urge, knowing that the pleasure he gains from inflicting the pain is less than the pain or displeasure he'd inflict on the victim. A pedophile, e.g., could suppress this urge.

Though there is not the necessary scientific equipment to accurately measure the suffering or pain

I'm not even asking for scientific accuracy, i'm asking for an objective means of measurement.

We estimate it. I.e., the toe-stub vs. the catheter -- Ouch!

One catheter stick-in = 50 toe-stubs, e.g. So we even have a unit of measurement. It's only the precision that we lack. (Or in ouches: 1 toe-stub = 10 ouches, and 1 catheter stick-in = 500 ouches.)

We can objectively estimate these, even if we can't measure it exactly.

And you're still subjective in preferring pleasure over suffering. Doesn't suffering make us stronger?

Some suffering produces a good result later. Like Basic Training toughens the trainee. But this is done in order to gain the benefit of the later toughness. Those later benefits, like having a stronger fighting force, results in winning the war, which produces many pleasureful benefits to the country.

There ultimately has to be some good result, increased pleasure, produced by the earlier hardship that one suffered. Sacrifice. Even a life lost in order to produce a good result later. Like war casualties. The good guys have to sacrifice some losses on their side, but it's worth it in order to win the fight. The long-term benefit is greater. Hopefully. That's the plan.

That's what the President said after the shooting in the church.

He was only trying to salvage some good part. He did not mean that the net result of the shooting was a good result overall and that therefore it was good that it happened.

. . . to someone vs. the quantity of pleasure to another, this does not mean we cannot reasonably estimate these amounts.

You just need to provide some measurement system that isn't a subjective estimate of the amounts in order to prove you're making an objective evaluation.

In extreme comparisons we can say which pleasure was greater, or which pain. We can make the judgment. If an airliner crashes into your neighborhood killing and maiming 50 people, that causes more pain, or loss of pleasure, than if a car skids into your yard and kills your dog.

Just because the electronic measuring tool does not exist doesn't mean we cannot make those judgments.

If a kid falls down a flight of stairs and sees Bugs Bunny blow Daffy Duck up with dynamite, he's going to say that the suffering of the stair-fall is greater.

You got me there.

So, no, you're failing, here.

You foiled me with the Daffy duck example.

If we cannot make such reasonable estimates and comparisons, then we also cannot reasonably conclude that Washington was the first President. It's possible he was not.

You cannot provide an objective measurement of suffering, or an objective standard for not burning down a church, so you compare it to something dissimilar . . .

No, it's not dissimilar. Both are empirical facts which are difficult to measure precisely. And that's the only problem. Maybe the value judgment fact is more difficult to measure, but the difficulty of measuring it precisely is the only problem, for both kinds of empirical fact.

When someone suffers pain, that is an empirical fact you can observe. Not as easily. But in science there are many factual phenomena which are difficult to observe directly. Difficulty of measuring it doesn't mean it has no quantity and cannot be estimated.

. . . and shift the burden of proof to your critic as a distraction.

It's not a distraction. It's a legitimate analogy. We recognize that some quantities are difficult to measure, or some facts are difficult to prove. But we can make the judgments and measurements anyway. In some cases the truth is obvious enough, or the comparison is obvious enough, that we can make a good judgment or measurement.

You can't prove any empirical fact with 100% certainty. There's always some tiny degree of doubt. But we can make good judgments about what the truth is.

We know Washington was the first President, just as we know 500 dead victims from a plane crash is a worse tragedy than one dog killed by a car. Neither can be proved with 100% certainty. Only 99.99999999 etc. %. But that's good enough.

"My claim is just as good as any claim of history!" you pretend. "Unless YOU can do my homework..."

No, I only showed by analogy that measuring pain is difficult just as many empirical facts we know are difficult. Difficult to identify or confirm or measure precisely. We have our proofs or evidences, but we never have 100% certainty. That's the only problem with measuring pain/pleasure. You can't explain why it's any different as a problem than determining who the first President was, except that maybe it's more difficult. A little bit difficult vs. very difficult.

Well, if that's the best you have, and it's the same process you've been flogging in the 'reject christainity' thread, I'll just assume you've conceded defeat.

Was it from Daffy Duck that you learned to spell "Christianity" that way?

 

[DBT]

Rather than being an ''objective measurement of pain'' you are describing felt pain and verbal report. Pain itself is a subjective sensation/experience.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We can estimate it, yes. Just because it's difficult to measure doesn't mean it's impossible.

This is true. I was in the hospital recently and they asked how my pain felt on a scale of 1 to 10. I could point to my amputated finger and say, 'This was a ten, I'm currently feeling a nine.'

But that was entirely subjective. And the fact that pain/suffering exists does NOT mean we have an objective standard to say that suffering is always bad.

Next day you have an operation and they have to stick a catheter in you -- Ouch!

Wrong. The catheter going in doesn't hurt.

Can't we reasonably measure, i.e., ESTIMATE, that the pain of the latter is somewhat greater?

Well, that's the problem. YOU haven't had a catheter put in. You imagine that it would hurt. It doesn't.
Not on the way in.

So the fact that you're estimating a fantasy pain kinda spoils your entire argument.

You would have to limit catheter estimates to those people who HAVE had a catheter put in, and know what the fuck they're talking about.
Your estimate would be even less than subjective, it's imaginary.

Your entire premise is exposed as a lie, Lumpy. If you haven't suffered the exact pain, you have no way to estimate it.
If you haven't felt a sadistic glee by ripping a catheter out of a patient (that would be when it hurts, maybe, depending on how long it's been in), you cannot estimate the pleasure of the act.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was it from Daffy Duck that you learned to spell "Christianity" that way?

Actually, it was from a Christain.
He habitually misspelled 'athiest,' and maintained in the face of criticism that it was just political correctness to worry about it, for real people it didn't matter a damn.
So i got in the habit of this spelling. Since it doesn't matter a damn.

 

[Atheos]

If there are 50 Muslims who habitually worship at a place in the heart of a metropolis where 2 million Christians believe it is in the best interest of everyone for them to destroy the place these people worship, does the self-righteous pleasure of 2 million Christians effecting the destruction of what they perceive to be an abomination outweigh the loss suffered from 50 Muslims? I'm just curious about how this Lumpenproletariat-math works.

 

[Bomb#20]

No doubt God is a Utilitarian. If he exists.

You said that any god that existed would probably agree with us on the whole good/bad thing.

What I should have said is that if God exists, then he knows "good/evil" and "right/wrong" just as we do. Maybe he knows it better, but still it's essentially the same as what we know.
...
Whether they agree or not, our "moral code" is not based on what they might hand down to us. We know "good/evil" without needing them to dictate it to us.
...
But those "gods" do not exist. I said "gods" which really do exist, if there are any, probably agree with us about what is good/evil or right/wrong.
...
Yes, we know it's evil to rob a bank, put Jews into ovens, bomb Black churches in Alabama and stuff like that.
...
There are objective standards.
...
But weren't they wrong? Just because we can know good/evil and right/wrong doesn't mean everyone agrees. Sometimes people can be wrong and do evil things. That doesn't mean there's no objective good/evil.
...

Many people today think it was right at the time, and many people today think it would be right to do again.

But reasonable people know they're wrong.
...
There is an objective standard. It's because there's an objective standard that everyone agrees. The agreement is based upon the objective standard.

Prove to me that 'good' exists, as opposed to just an opinion we flog until everyone agrees with us or at least shuts up. Can you? Or do you just expect agreement?

I think the utilitarians already answered this a long time ago. "Greatest good for the greatest number."

But I'll say it this way: An increase in pleasure is always good if it's not accompanied by a decrease somewhere, or by an increase in pain. So, pure pleasure increase per se, with no other change, is always good.

(Some pleasure can be "bad" because it's superficial and will produce pain later, so we have to add the qualifier that the pleasure does not cause any offsetting pain or deprivation, and then it's "good" in the pure sense.)

The only drawback is the uncertainty about a possible change somewhere which could cancel the increase in pleasure. But we have extreme probability in many cases that an increase in pleasure happened, or also a decrease in pain, without any other change to cancel it.
...
In many cases the certainty is not so clear, but we have to choose what probably will lead to the better outcome. And we know this is "good" no matter what we believe about God.

Has it not occurred to you that this entire line of argument is wildly incompatible with the observed fact that people, for the most part, are not utilitarians? If there's no doubt in your mind that any really existing God is a Utilitarian, then you can't rationally infer that his views are essentially the same as what we know. You're contradicting that conclusion; you're asserting that his views are essentially the same as what you know. If as you say, "gods" which really do exist, if there are any, probably agree with us about what is good/evil or right/wrong, then it follows that the gods, same as "reasonable people" everywhere, are perfectly well aware that utilitarianism is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys. [Atheos demonstrates this succinctly in post #35.] There probably isn't one person in a thousand who sincerely believes in utilitarianism, (as opposed to claiming to believe in it because he thinks it's what all the best people believe in), and even the rare Peter Singer types, the folks who apparently really do believe in it, make no serious attempt to live by its dictates.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

Why on earth would you imagine that if someone disagrees with you about whether it's good to do some particular harm, it must be because he's disagreeing with you about the magnitude of the harm relative to the magnitude of the benefit, as opposed to disagreeing with you about whether toting up harms and benefits and doing an arithmetic operation is the correct way to judge right and wrong? You understand, don't you, that what you're doing is no different from a Christian deluding himself that deep down atheists all agree with him that the Christian God is real and are just being dicks about admitting it?

Normal people care who gets the happiness and who gets the suffering. The amount of pleasure the two million bigots get from destroying the mosque does not weigh in the scales of justice against the suffering of the fifty people who lose their mosque, because the bigots don't deserve that pleasure. As Kant said, morality is not about how we can make ourselves happy, but about how we can make ourselves worthy of happiness.

Utilitarianism is unreasonable. What makes you think God would agree with you about that instead of agreeing with us about that?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why the hell would you think that?

E.g., this "God" also knows the same facts/truths, that the earth is round, 2 + 2 = 4, etc., and so also knows the same truths about good/evil or right/wrong.

What if the god that exists is Kali?

Well in that case there are many "gods" -- some nice guys and others maybe not so nice.

This doesn't change the point I'm making. The question is: What is "good" and "evil" / "right" and "wrong" if "God" is set aside and is not the authority for defining what is "good/evil" or "right/wrong" etc.?

I.e., we KNOW that there is "good" and "evil" etc. We know this for sure, but we don't know for sure about "God" or "gods" and so on. Those may or may not be, but what's "right" and "wrong" is something we know for sure. (Or do you say we don't know for sure that it was wrong for Nazis to put Jews into ovens? or for Count Dracula to torture people? etc.?) Let's agree that we know some things for sure, about what is "right" and "wrong," even if there are also some ambiguous cases, like whether it's wrong to kill animals for food, or to use whales and other animals for entertainment, etc.

Gods are story characters used to teach and transmit cultural values.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Just because it's difficult to measure or calculate doesn't mean there's no objective standard for right/wrong.

We know "good/evil" without needing them to dictate it to us.

Do we? I think many beg to differ, see above. I'm sure that you could get 99% of the right 1,000 people to agree with what is good/right and evil/wrong on a few basic and obvious things. However, on hundreds of other issues you would find strong disagreements.

Yes, often. And in those cases, some are correct, they know the truth, and others are mistaken. Which is very frequent. But we know slavery is wrong. I.e., 99.9% of us know this. It doesn't matter that some disagree. They're just mistaken.

Yet, you and your cohorts might still think XYZ is evil/wrong. Also human standards of right/wrong have evolved over the eons.

In some cases the standards were wrong. In other cases "right/wrong" actually did change.

rape and pillage used to be part of the norm for the winning side in war. It took millennia for the vast majority of humans to decide that slavery is wrong. Subjugating women used to be considered normal as well as marrying them off in their adolescence w/o their consent. Is homosexual marriage wrong? No need to go down into the weeds of whether it is ok to kill animals for food or whether a 5-year-old pulling off fly wings is wrong.

It's difficult to determine the truth in some cases, about what's "good/evil" or "right/wrong" just like with scientific and historical facts. That doesn't mean there's no truth out there.

It's good to take an extreme example to make the point. And those who disagree and say it's OK to burn Black churches or torture someone or fly airplanes into buildings etc. are just wrong. They can be proved wrong the same as if they say Lincoln was the first President.

Historical facts like Pres. Lincoln was the first president, is quite different than societal mores (see above again).

The only difference is that it's more difficult to determine what's "good/evil" and "right/wrong" in most cases. But sometimes the historical facts are also difficult to determine, in which case there is no difference between historical facts right-wrong facts. I.e., we know the right-wrong just as we know those historical facts.

Did the people who captured those planes and flew them into building on 9/11 think it wrong? In the below Gallup sponsored poll, 7% of Muslims felt the 911 attack was "completely justified":
http://twocircles.net/2008feb26/pol..._radicals_muslim_world_poll.html#.WBNUTPkrKUk

They were wrong. It was not justified. Just because someone believes it doesn't make it so. Same as with scientific / historical facts. Whether they thought Lincoln was the first president or they thought it was right to fly the plane into the building. Both equally wrong.

Among the seven percent who viewed the Sep 11 attacks as "completely justified", Mogahed said that "not one gave religious justification" for their views, instead expressing their fear of US plans for occupation and domination of the Muslim world.

Still it was wrong for them to fly the plane into the building. Regardless whether they believed that.

If I'm hallucinating that someone is going to kill me, it's wrong for me to kill them based on my mistake.

So was the below evil by the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder#Problems

On 31 December 1967, the Department of Defense announced that 864,000 tons of American bombs had been dropped on North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder, compared with 653,000 tons dropped during the entire Korean War and 503,000 tons in the Pacific theater during the Second World War.
<snip>
The agency also estimated that approximately 1,000 casualties had been inflicted on the North Vietnamese population per week, or approximately 90,000 for the 44-month period, 72,000 of whom were civilians.

Just because there's ambiguity and disagreement doesn't mean there's no "right/wrong" or "good/evil" that we know. In other cases we know with more certainty.

Is a US pilot dropping 60,000 pounds in 108 bombs from 20,000 feet upon a country on the other side of the world, evil? How many Americans would agree? How many Vietnamese would agree?

A similar number were killed in Korea. But millions of Koreans today are better off than they would be if we hadn't done it. It is difficult to weigh all the good vs. bad consequences, but that doesn't mean we can't know what's right/wrong in many cases. It was probably best to drop the big one on Japan, to end the war and save more lives overall. There can be disagreement, but that doesn't mean there's no true answer. Just because it's difficult to calculate the correct answer doesn't mean there is no correct answer.

Even if everyone agreed, that's still not proving it's an objective standard.

There is an objective standard. It's because there's an objective standard that everyone agrees. The agreement is based upon the objective standard.

There is nothing that "everyone" agrees about regarding right/wrong.

Yes there is. I.e., 99% or 99.9%. That's a sufficiently-close approximation to "everyone" for this purpose.

You can still find people defending the Nazi's...

They're wrong. They can be proved wrong.

Therefore, based on your logic alone, there is no objective standard.

No, there is still an objective standard, and the ones who are wrong can be proved wrong by that objective standard.

Likewise, murder is not wrong because people believe it's wrong -- rather, people believe it's wrong because it is wrong.

Try defining some that appears to be as concrete as one can get, aka murder, so that even 98% of the people would agree with the definition, and find out just how porous your idea of objective standards are.

OK, so let's abolish all the courts and the criminal justice system and prisons and police. When you agree to that, then you can claim there is no objective standard to criminal prosecutions and punishments.

Just because the ideas can be difficult does not mean there's no objective standard and no right/wrong.

Realize that many evangelical Christians consider abortion murder.

They're wrong. But maybe in some cases, if the fetus was healthy and the prospects were good for that infant and the mother, it might have been wrong to abort it. The decision to abort is probably wrong in some cases. Maybe even "murder" in 1 out of 1000 cases or so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just because it's difficult to measure or calculate doesn't mean there's no objective standard for right/wrong.

But we asked for an objective standard for right and wrong, you offer subjective impressions of pain, suffering and pleasure, and insist that that's the objective standard.

You continue to fail to produce the objective standard for right and wrong, Lumpy.

Just because the ideas can be difficult does not mean there's no objective standard and no right/wrong.

And 'just because' you have an opinion on suffering, that doesn't come close to making it objective.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK, so let's abolish all the courts and the criminal justice system and prisons and police. When you agree to that, then you can claim there is no objective standard to criminal prosecutions and punishments.

It'd be really easy to just agree to that, since it'll never happen, then where's your argument?

But the fact that we have a man-made justice system is just evidence that we have a man-made justice system.

If it's a function of objective right and wrong, could you explain how our justice system would be different if there were no objective right and wrong? If it was merely, say, a social convention created to allow greater numbers of humans to live and work together, subject to changes in social opinions and whims of power?