Atheists are having it too easy.

[Almanac]

I'm not sure how that is different from what I took you to mean by the phrase 'moral language' and I'm still not seeing where your argument moves beyond suggesting that morality is objective simply because most people behave as though it is. I still don't know what it means to have an 'experience of morality', which is surely not the same thing as having an experience of someone using moral language, however it's defined.

The way we use moral language implies an understanding of morality as objective. Otherwise why would we praise people for being right or blame them for being wrong? Why would we reward or punish them for being right or wrong? Why would we say things like, "I think that's right" or "That seems unjust." In all these an understanding of morality as objective is implied. What are we doing when we make statements (or perform actions) like these (which we all do)? Do we or do we not think that we ought to do some things and ought not to do others? This is the moral experience I am referring to. Is not our moral language formed from this experience? And what kind of understanding of this moral experience is reflected in our moral language?

[Mercurial]

The way we use moral language implies an understanding of morality as objective. Otherwise why would we praise people for being right or blame them for being wrong? Why would we reward or punish them for being right or wrong? Why would we say things like, "I think that's right" or "That seems unjust." In all these an understanding of morality as objective is implied. What are we doing when we make statements (or perform actions) like these (which we all do)? Do we or do we not think that we ought to do some things and ought not to do others? This is the moral experience I am referring to. Is not our moral language formed from this experience? And what kind of understanding of this moral experience is reflected in our moral language?

Not necessarily. We might still praise people for being right or blame them for being wrong if we understood that they were behaving according to the same moral rules. You could believe that morality is relative to time or to culture, for example and engage in moral talk with members who share the same moral sphere as you do.

And I still don't see how this gets you closer to objective morality. I agree that we intuiviely feel that some things are good and some bad, but this intuition can be stretched across space and time to the point where it seems very difficult to see what would remain as universal which could not be explained as easily by the notion of a shared human experience rather than something external.

[Almanac]

Not necessarily. We might still praise people for being right or blame them for being wrong if we understood that they were behaving according to the same moral rules. You could believe that morality is relative to time or to culture, for example and engage in moral talk with members who share the same moral sphere as you do.

The point is we never do this. Unless by strained, conscious effort. Think about it. We may deny morality is objective but only after it has first been affirmed as so by our experience.

And I still don't see how this gets you closer to objective morality. I agree that we intuiviely feel that some things are good and some bad, but this intuition can be stretched across space and time to the point where it seems very difficult to see what would remain as universal which could not be explained as easily by the notion of a shared human experience rather than something external.

The evidence is from our everyday intersubjective experience of morality and the moral language formed from this experience. Space and time have little to do with it since we're not discussing shared moral values- which may happen to be the result of a happy coincidence or whatever.

[fionnmccool]

I kind of got fatigued by this thread its so long

The point is we never do this. Unless by strained, conscious effort. Think about it. We may deny morality is objective but only after it has first been affirmed as so by our experience.

Is there any established objective morality or moral code ?

Isn't morality man made ? We can debate actions and their consequences but at the end of the day we end up with a set of imperfect laws because people are not perfect. Those laws become refined over time. An objective and complete set of laws is an ideal to strive towards but until this far away moment towards infinity don't we we still have to work on our imperfect legal system and imperfect moral codes? For example 50 years ago nobody would have even entertained the idea that leaving your tap running could be immoral since it wastes water.
If moral codes are not a work in progress then society would never change. A lot of changes have occurred over the last century. I kind of find this concept of claimed complete objectivity to be like a recurring decimal in that it grows and grows yet it never reaches its goal in the present moment but instead at some ideal moment. Claiming that society already knows everything there is to know could be a recipe for stagnation.

[Mercurial]

The point is we never do this. Unless by strained, conscious effort. Think about it. We may deny morality is objective but only after it has first been affirmed as so by our experience.

I still don't understand. We experience feelings of revulsion or approval and we experience people using moral language, but I don't know what it means to 'experience morality'. You seem to be saying that moral relativism must be false because we have to think about it before accepting it...

The evidence is from our everyday intersubjective experience of morality and the moral language formed from this experience. Space and time have little to do with it since we're not discussing shared moral values- which may happen to be the result of a happy coincidence or whatever.

I still don't know what this mysterious thing is that we experience. Can you give me a concrete example of a single 'moral experience' which begets moral language and indicates that morality is objective?

[ibis]

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if only that was what I was claiming...but I'm not.

Well there is also the evidence. Evidence from interior experience (conscience and how it represents its claims to us), from our interpersonal behaviour and the moral language that we use, as well as from our collective moral tradition:

Illustrations of the Tao

As has already been pointed out, that 'evidence' also leads to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't think it's necessary to say more than that - a commonly held fallacy is no less a fallacy for being commonly held.

No but there is some content where we're concerned- the subjective or objective value terms 'good' and 'evil.' There is something otherwise we couldn't even have this discussion; the question is the nature of that something.

Unfortunately, you're taking that point as proof of the objective existence of morality. Is there such a thing as a unicorn? No, but we seem to be able to discuss it as if there were.

Now tell me if in a democracy, people (a majority) voted in favour of enslaving other people, would it still be a good law if it remained illegal?

I would not agree with a law allowing slavery, but plenty of people have historically done so.

[greenporcupine]

Might as well ask why the Arians or the Cathars didn't flourish (in the end).

The reason lies in the behaviour of Christians (catholics).

Ask a silly question...

The reason the Cathars did not flourish from what I remember was because they believed that there were two entities or Gods.
The one who was good ,and the one who was bad.
The reason this is a heresy is that the 'devil' cannot create ,only destroy.
Only the Creator [God ]can create.
This is central to atheism v theism [creation],because it is quite clear that
atheism lives parasitically on the back [historically ] of theism.
We have reached the stage we have scientifically because of the purity engendered by following the higher path,just as in a garden,the atheists are reaping the harvest of those who 'followed' ,but they will have nothing to sow,for the future,unless .
Reasoning is not creative,it can only analyse,and more of it will bring darkness
and nothingness,as the creations of the past fade.

[Foghorn]

I would not agree with a law allowing slavery, but plenty of people have historically done so.

Does democracy then make the deed moral? Wouldn't a majority voting for slavery, in a truly secular society, make slavery moral? As you say history has supported slavery in the past.

[ibis]

Does democracy then make the deed moral? Wouldn't a majority voting for slavery, in a truly secular society, make slavery moral? As you say history has supported slavery in the past.

I haven't argued that either majority support or observation in nature makes something moral. As Almanac keeps pointing out, one can only go from observation to observation - therefore, all one can really say about a society in which the majority vote for slavery is that it is a society in which the majority probably regard slavery as moral.

It's quite possible, however, that the majority who voted for slavery don't regard it as moral - they may well regard it as immoral but justified. Usually, however, the kind of tension that would create would be resolved either through a repeal of the law or through adjustment of moral outlook.

Tell me something - do the majority of people regard pollution or waste as morally acceptable?

[greenporcupine]

I think most of us are slaves in modern society,in so many ways.
Those who prevent freedom of speech because it offends them are 'slave' drivers,same mentality.