My objections to an objective morality

[zorathruster]

There exists behaviors which are necessarily either moral or immoral. Moral behavior is a special category of behavior that is such based on some criteria. Immoral behavior likewise is categorized based on some criteria.

Objective morality is a way to differentiate specific behavior as moral. Objective Morality as proposed is a criteria that exists outside of the human mind. I have many objections to objective morality as asserted.


1. Objection from an intelligent mind perspective

How would one distinguish an “objective morality” if it does exist from a modified subjective morality? Necessarily any moral code or ethic that could be called objective would need to be transmitted or presented through a medium that would eliminate the influence of humans to maintain a level of objectivity. All other forms of life adhere to the natural selection and survival of the fittest. Morality as presented in human manifestations are not found anywhere else in the animal or plant life kingdoms.

Therefore: Since no morality has been observed to emanate from any intelligent source other than a human mind, it is so far impossible to determine if an objective morality exists because we have no other testable examples of an intelligent mind.


2. Objection from exclusive communication

If there is no other way to determine moral behavior than that which is desired to be done by a God, he must exclusively communicate to the individual to prevent any subjective process from coming to bear on the communication. Then there is no basis for determining what is moral except that which is exclusively passed by God directly to the individual and excludes subjective moral evaluations made by others because of the uncertainty of the individual message. Moral directives could not be verified by other humans because direct God to human interfaces are rare and for the most part unobservable. As such the only possible objective morality would be a specific direct message to an individual from the supernatural being God.

Ex. David Koresh claimed to speak for God? The majority of citizens claim the opposite, David Koresh does not speak for God, yet there is really no way for them to determine the communication veracity. Thus a citizen who wishes to make moral decisions cannot determine that which is moral being directly communicated from God to another human from that which is psychotic.

Therefore: Since it cannot be differentiated at what level psychotic immoral behavior and moral behavior in accordance with the directives of a God can be differentiated, all immoral behavior which is not self reported as otherwise (confession) becomes morally acceptable when judged by an observer assuming an objective morality exists. If both moral and immoral behavior cannot be differentiated no behavior can be confidently labeled either way. Morality looses its meaning as a special case of behavior therefore the concept of an objective morality fails.


3. Objection from consistency

The proposed existence of a universal moral law implies that an action which is immoral in one situation must be immoral in all situations? We can answer this by looking at another "universal law", the law of gravity. If you are standing on the Earth and let go of a ball, you will see the ball fall down. If you let go of a ball when you are in a spaceship out in deep space, however, you will see the ball remain where it is. The fact that there exists a universal law of gravity does not imply that if a ball falls down in one situation, it must fall down in all situations. Likewise, to differentiate the special cases of moral behavior that are in special circumstances similar to the ball in outer space becomes indiscernible.

Ex: Deanna Laney of Tyler TX who killed her children is a special case of moral behavior in concert with an objective morality where God told her to kill her children. We cannot discern whether God did tell Deanna Laney to actually kill her children or not. She could be acting in accordance with the proposed objective morality or more probably she is psychotic.

Therefore: Moral behavior in conjunction with an objective morality, which is a special case, cannot be distinguished from immoral behavior therefore objective morality fails.


4. Objection from indicernability

We can believe that one action, such as killing another person for entertainment, is immoral, while simultaneously believing that another similar action, such as killing a gunman in a store, is not immoral. However, in order to do so, we should be able to point out the characteristic, which differentiate the two actions, as we did in the case of letting go of a ball. In this case, the distinguishing characteristic is that killing the gunman is the only way to prevent the gunman from deliberately killing many other people. We cannot define the “objective criteria” within an “objective morality” that is used to determine moral as differentiated from immoral behavior.

Therefore: The inability to differentiate a characteristic that distinguishes moral from immoral behavior prevents the determination of morality using the proposed objective morality criteria.


5. Objection from proportional punishment

An objective morality assumes an omnipotent being who is able to judge specific acts against the proposed objective moral criteria. Supposedly differentiating between slaughtering Midionites as good and slaughtering Jews during WWII as bad. Likewise, most theists assume there is an appropriate sanction that will be administered once the judgment is discerned. An omnipotent being is capable of inflicting the exact punishment required for a specific offense. To over punish an individual for a specific infraction is not morally appropriate. Punishment should be correct, adequate, proportional and appropriate all of which can be discerned by a proposed omnipotent being. Since humans have no idea what the real underlying moral basis for or against an action is, it is inappropriate for humans to interfere with the punishment process. If an objective criterion exists of which humans have no insight, decisions about crime and punishment are made in an arena of ignorance and therefore should not be made at all. All appropriate and adequate punishment will be administered upon arrival at divine judgment.

Ex: Andrea Yates killed her children to save them from eternal damnation. This appears to be a compassionate act from a theistic perspective. Most humans would not grant that her actions were in concert with any objective moral criteria. The proposed objective criteria is unknown and Ms Yates could have been acting in accordance with an objective morality and it would be immoral to punish her for those actions. We should not punish Ms Yates because we do not know whether she was acting compassionately in accordance with an objective morality, criminally or psychotically. That determination will be made by God who supposedly knows the objective moral criteria.

Therefore: The inability to differentiate proper adequate and measured responses to acts of perceived immorality would prevent humans from punishing criminals.


6. Objection of incompatibility with Christian principles

Objective morality is inconsistent with professed Christian principles or Biblical texts. If God exists, then objective morality is implemented under 4 criteria:

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible.
(2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.
(3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.
(4) The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.

To deny (1) would be to admit that God sometimes commits, causes, commands, or condones, acts that are morally impermissible. But that would mean that God himself is immoral, or even, depending on the enormity of his misdeeds, that he is evil. It would entail denying that he is holy and worthy of worship; and denying, further, that his holiness is the ground of morality.

To deny (2), for the theist, would be to be to abandon the chief foundation of religious and moral epistemology (ways of obtaining religious and moral knowledge). For if (2) were false, then the question arises as to how we are supposed to know of God's existence let alone look to him for moral guidance. After all, it is a distinguishing feature of theism, as opposed to deism, to hold that God reveals himself to us and, from time to time, intervenes in human history. And the Bible, according to theists, is the principal record of his revelatory interventions. If the Bible, with its stories of Moses and Jesus, is not his revealed and presumptively true word, then how are we to know of him? If God doesn't reveal himself through the Old Testament Moses and the New Testament Jesus, then through whom does he reveal himself? To be sure, a theist could well claim that God also reveals himself through other channels in addition to the Bible: reason, tradition, and religious experience all being cases in point. But to deny that the Bible is his main mode of communication would be to deny that the principal figures in Judaism and Christianity can really be known at all. Apart from the scriptural records, we would know little, if anything, of Moses or Jesus, it being doubtful that secular history has anything reliable to say about either. Apart from the scriptural records we would know nothing of the so-called Ten Commandments that God supposedly delivered to Moses, or of the ethical principles that Jesus supposedly delivered in his sermons and parables.

To deny (3) would be to assert that it is morally permissible to violate our five moral principles. It would be to ally oneself with moral monsters like Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. It would be to abandon all pretenses to a belief in objective moral values. Indeed, if it is permissible to violate the above principles, then it isn't easy to see what sorts of acts would not be permissible. The denial of (3), then, would be tantamount to an embrace of moral nihilism. And no theist who believes in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount could assent to that.

That leaves only (4). But to deny (4) would be to fly in the face of facts ascertainable by anyone who takes the care to read: objective facts about what the Bible actually says.

Therefore: From a Christian perspective, Objective morality conflicts with basic tenets of their belief system.


7. Objection of Universal Application:

If a universal or objective morality applies then, as with other universal laws, such as gravity, it applies to all animals, substances and elements, then an objective morality should likewise apply to all creatures. Many creatures exhibit behaviors which contrast to proposed objective morality as understood by humans who proclaim such a thing exists.

Ex. Lions do not honor human life and have no moral inhibitions against taking a human life.

Therefore: Objective morality as a universal or all-inclusive moral criteria does not exist.


8. Objection from Evolution:

Moral values change. It is true that moral values prominent 500 years ago have changed. If it is true that there is an objective morality this would not be the case. A universal or objective morality should be consistent over time.

Ex: The Bible affirms slavery as valid. If an objective morality existed, it should remain valid throughout time. Since humans collectively agree today that slavery is immoral, there must have occurred a change in the objective moral criteria. It could however be argued that the Bible is incorrect in supporting the tenets of slavery, but few theists would wish to object from this position.

Therefore: Since changes in moral criteria violates the definition of objective morality, objective morality doesn’t exist


9. Objection from transmissibility

If objective morality exists in order to be transmitted must avoid mechanisms that might impart subjective influence on those moral truths it cannot follow normal transmission mechanisms of speech, writing or sight. Since there exists no known mechanism for the transference of an objective morality even if it did exist, humans have no way to perceive it outside subjective mechanisms.

Therefore: Objective morality doesn’t exist or if it does exist cannot be perceived by humans.


10. Objection from discernment

If objective morality exists, has no mechanism for discernment. Slavery may be moral or immoral in the proposed objective morality but there is nothing other than subjective criteria upon which to base that determination. Since the actual objective criteria cannot be observed those objective moral criteria could either exist or not exist but either way indiscernible.

Therefore: Objective morality is indiscernible.


11. Objection from desire

Belief in objective morality is less than sufficient evidence to support the existence of the asserted objective morality.

Ex. I believe purple unicorns exist is not sufficient to validate their existence

Therefore: Just because someone wants objective morality to exist does not validate that it exists.


12. Objection from traits

To exhibit traits of a hypothetical creation such as an objective morality or a purple unicorn does not validate that such an object exists.

Ex: a. There exists an animal similar to a horse but is not a horse

b. There exists the color purple

c. There exists animals that have horns centrally located on their heads

So, a purple unicorn exists!

This argument is invalid because even though all the stated characteristics exist and are observable it does not follow that the combined characteristics exists unless it is observed en-total.

Therefore: Even if all the characteristics that would fit a proposed objective morality exist, it does not follow that objective morality exists unless observed wholly.


13. Objection from communication timing

Supposed moral teachings and revelations occurred more frequently 2000+ years ago. Thus theist’s willingness to canonize writings from that period more frequently than canonizing modern works. These would correlate to an immediate revelation of the specific moral criteria included in a proposed objective morality. A God would have passed the purer expression of an objective morality. Since this moral criteria would have had less subjective interpretation at it’s origin, objective criteria should have been closer to the proposed objective morality at that time than today after analysis ad nauseum, it follows that morality, as expressed 2000+ years ago would reflect better the imagined objective morality. Many moral positions held during that period are objectionable to modern moralists - punishment adequacy, social hierarchy, social structure, and many more points.

Therefore: Since modern moral positions are held on more solid moral basis than Biblical moral positions it does not follow that Biblical moral criteria reflect a better moral position even though they represent a purer expression of the proposed objective morality. Objective morality as proposed fails to achieve it’s definition of an ultimate moral criteria.


14. Objection from the character of Information

For information to be valid basis for truth, observation of the combined actual object is necessary. Objective morality cannot be observed directly.

Therefore: From the perspective of humans, information constituting objective morality is inaccessible. If it exists, it cannot fulfill information requirements and therefore is irrelevant to humans.


15. Objection from communication criteria

In order for a communication to occur a message must be formulated, transmitted, received, and understood. The proposed objective morality fails not just 1 but 3 of the necessary qualities to be communicated. Transmission, Reception, and Clarity

Therefore: An objective morality cannot be adequately communicated to human observers.


16. Objection from negation criteria

What are the criteria in accordance with Popper’s falsification criteria which if shown to be true would invalidate the proposed objective morality?

Therefore: Objective morality does not exist except as circular arguments, which have no basis for truth.


17. Objection from incompatibility

If people are judged based on criteria of an objective morality it is incompatible with a God as defined by Judeo Christian ethics.

1. A God is just.

2. It is possible that an omnipotent being could ensure all persons know the objective moral criteria.

3. God judges based on criteria of objective morality

4. To judge someone on criteria that is unknown or poorly defined or poorly communicated is unjust.

5. Not all humans understand the proposed objective moral criteria.

6. Either God as defined does not exist or objective morality does not exist.


18. Objection from incompatible criteria

A number of criteria that exist in an objective morality could contain logical incompatibilities. It could be moral to own slaves and immoral to own slaves. All humans would be classified immoral and moral by such an objective morality.

Therefore: An objective morality is not able to differentiate moral from immoral behavior. This is a primary function of any moral criteria and objective morality fails to provide this function.


19. Objection from discernment

What would be the basis of a proposed objective morality? Is it proper because God says it is proper? Which would mean God could arbitrarily assign moral or immoral status to any particular act. To discern the actual moral code would be impossible using ambiguous criteria therefore unusable. Or could it be that God recognizes particular acts as moral and abiding by a higher moral truth, the proposed objective morality. If morality exists separate from God then he like us are searchers trying to discern the appropriate moral choices. God is not necessary for moral behavior. A theist is hard pressed to form an argument that allows an objective morality.

Ex: Is incest immoral because God dislikes or disapproves of incest, or is incest immoral in and of it’s self? Biblical points occasionally condone incest as appropriate. Does that mean it is arbitrary and “subjective”?

Therefore: Objective morality fails to have any basis for assertion even in a theistic framework.


20. Objection from ignorance

To argue qualities or characteristics of a concept or criteria that cannot be directly observed and attributed to an objective morality could attribute qualities or parameters that do not exist in that concept.

Ex: One might say it is the water’s desire to be elsewhere that causes the river to flow. Inanimate objects like water are unable to form desire. Without a stream to study or a knowledge of gravity, one should not attribute qualities to processes or characteristics that cannot be ruled out or judged correct.

Therefore: we cannot attribute moral qualities to an objective morality with any confidence. We know nothing of it and have no means of determining its nature.

[Benster]

"Do you believe it is ever right for any people(s) at any place in time in any culture to torture, molest and/or dismember babies just for the fun of it?"

Yes, if you really mean "COULD it ever be right".

Suppose there was a highly contagious virus that infected babies just after birth. If left to live, they infect people around them, and then die an agonizing death within two more days. These carrier babies are marked by blue sores on feet. And, unless their feet are removed from the body and burned quickly, their bodies spread disease rapidly.

OTOH, most of the babies seem to be immune to the disease, and don't get sick OR act as carriers, unless they are exposed to day-old, blue-foot babies, which no one can survive. So, I assume that you agree that it is the best thing for most babies that we off the disease carriers within a day.

Who will do it? Unfortunately, in this small society, only a twisted old man who takes pleasure in killing babies can be found. And he does this for no other reason than his pleasure. He is NOT motivated by our justification, that it is the right thing to do in the end. So, it is morally good, in this case, that this man dismember babies for pleasure. Or would you rather everyone died of this plague?

Any more moral absolutes for me to demolish? And before you protest that my hypothetical is too crazy, you are aware that human history has a history of burning bodies to fend off plagues? The more obvious your so called moral absolute is, the more radical must be the situation under which it is no longer moral. But I can always show that morals are relative.

[Benster]

"So, back to my original question: Do you believe it COULD ever be right for any people(s) at any place in time in any culture to torture, molest and/or dismember babies just for the fun of it?"

[I altered your question. I doesn't make any sense to say: "...it is ever...". "Will it ever be...?" Maybe not.
"Is it anywhere now...?" No.
"Could it ever be...?" YES!]

Yes! I just proved that it could be. And I explained why! Now, do YOU believe that it could ever be right to dismember babies for pleasure? This will show whether you can think rationally or not.

Because morals are relative, they depend on circumstance. If you are unwilling to believe that the circumstance changes morals, then you will be unprepared to do what's right under changing condition.

[Benster]

That silly apartheid again! I don't think anybody has any problem with the posts you've made, since they don't express overt theology. I don't know why a Naturalist forum is off-limits to theists, anyway. Science and the natural world are open to every theology, unlike the world of the supernatural.

Insummary, there is no moral code that can not be made to dissolve under certain circumstances...and that includes baby-eating, any depravity you can imagine. Keep in mind that we could be forced to descend into cannibalism, every one of us, and you'd be left hungry if you still felt morality was absoute!

[zorathruster]

Insummary, there is no moral code that can not be made to dissolve under certain circumstances...and that includes baby-eating, any depravity you can imagine. Keep in mind that we could be forced to descend into cannibalism, every one of us, and you'd be left hungry if you still felt morality was absoute!

I concur that is probably the best explanation of moral behavior. My purpose was to discuss the specific objections to the forwarded assertion of an "objective morality". No one can really describe it although I do like the analogy "if I like what you are doing it is moral, if I don't like what you are doing, it is immoral", for "objective morality". The overall specifics are where the concept boggs down and most theists are unwilling to step up to the plate and bring their definition for analysis.

As far as the rule against theists posting here, as you might note, Jason who lacks logic or reason has had his post removed. It really distracts from the discussion when radical theocrats intrude. However, good points are always welcome.

[Ben Franklin]

Morality is a man-made concept, no matter how each system of morality is classified. Laws codify these morals, but they're not virtue itself, just what people impose on themselves in place of virtue. Even Confucius himself, too realized that traditions and customs were substitutes for virtue.

[exile]

If I was living in the Incan empire, I would think it highly moral to sacrifice even someone in my own family to serve the Gods. I defy any "objective moralist" here to argue that I wouldn't.

I might object, or be angry. But my priest would tell me I am being selfish, and that true morality consists of obeying the commands of the Gods. And in all probability I would, in my heart, believe this.

In the Roman empire I would see nothing wrong in lions eating those filthy atheist Christians who refused to pay due respect to the divine emperor.

I find it difficult to find anything that was UNIVERSALLY considered morally wrong.

Cannibalism, human sacrifice, incest, murder, theft, torture. All have been considered not morally wrong (usually in some special circumstance) in some culture or period in history.

[Superbug]

I once had a long debate with Rationalist about objective morality and I discovered that not everyone understands objective morality as a criteria that exists outside of the human mind. Some people define objective morality as a shared set of instincts among humans, it's not "subjective" anymore because it's not an opinion, we know that everyone agrees because we all have the same moral instincts. They use the more common meaning of objective and subjective, not the philosophical definition.

[Stinky]

This has always been a tough one for me. But it seems to me that morality can only exist for a purpose. WHY is something moral or immoral. In a naturalistic world, it seems to me that all actions must be gauged by their effect on the human race. The health and continuing of the human race is the only ultimate goal of life. Therefore all actions must be gauged against this.

Is it immoral to torture babies for fun? Yes it is. This type of behavior is detrimental to the health of the human race, and therefore immoral.

I believe that if all morality were gauged in this manner, it would simplify things tremendously.

Not to say that it wouldn’t still be complicated, as our knowledge is incomplete, but it would remove negative moral decrees by supernaturalists, and remove the dangerous notion that morals are just what we want them to be.

Morals can be objective in the sense that there is a standard to judge them by.

But at the same time, individual actions can be situationally relative.

[zorathruster]

This has always been a tough one for me. But it seems to me that morality can only exist for a purpose. WHY is something moral or immoral. In a naturalistic world, it seems to me that all actions must be gauged by their effect on the human race. The health and continuing of the human race is the only ultimate goal of life. Therefore all actions must be gauged against this.

Is it immoral to torture babies for fun? Yes it is. This type of behavior is detrimental to the health of the human race, and therefore immoral.

I believe that if all morality were gauged in this manner, it would simplify things tremendously.

Not to say that it wouldn’t still be complicated, as our knowledge is incomplete, but it would remove negative moral decrees by supernaturalists, and remove the dangerous notion that morals are just what we want them to be.

Morals can be objective in the sense that there is a standard to judge them by.

But at the same time, individual actions can be situationally relative.

These are excellent points!

I believe it is possible to establish a base of sorts. It is foundational in the "Golden Rule" and is best expressed in terms of non-zero gaming theory. Made famous by John Nash and lightly touched on by the movie "A Beautiful Mind". Nash's theories as applied to sociology define interaction descriptors that tend to be consistent over a broad range of possible situations. Two works that explain indepth are "Non-zero, the logic of human destiny" Robert Wright and "The Science of Good and Evil" Michael Shermer.

[Octavian]

are you laying bait for an abortion argument? Or are you asking whether its ever OK to molest, kill, dismember, living & breathing infants (after they're born that is)? If your asking the latter, then of course it's wrong and it always should be wrong. Has it been practiced by other societies? Yes, unfortunately. Infanticide even occurred in Roman civilization (the founders of our Western civilization) with some regularity, and was tacidly tolerated. So even with regard to infanticide, morality has changed. So maybe objective morality is a myth?

While religious zealots may argue otherwise, the fact is that even religious morality constantly changes. Some religions may try to assert they are the vanguards of an ancient and pure tradition, but in fact even among these type of Christians there has been flux in their morality. Morality is subjective in the sense that it's definition relies much on the social mores of that era and the society defining it. Should morality be subjective? Of course it must be. Technology always changes, our historical knowledge changes, new unforeseen situations present theirself and society must react to it, etc.

Oct

Benster,

The question was simple. You need to answer it simply yes or no. Don't interject a circumstance to generate the possibility of someone getting his kicks by doing something that ultimately benefits others. For that matter, there are plenty of people who don't take pleasure in harming children who would do the job if necessary. I mean, are you really arguing that it's morally right for this person to enjoy himself by hurting children, regardless of the so-called benefits others will derive?

So, back to my original question: Do you believe it is ever right for any people(s) at any place in time in any culture to torture, molest and/or dismember babies just for the fun of it?

Starkman

[Stinky]

These are excellent points!

I believe it is possible to establish a base of sorts. It is foundational in the "Golden Rule" and is best expressed in terms of non-zero gaming theory. Made famous by John Nash and lightly touched on by the movie "A Beautiful Mind". Nash's theories as applied to sociology define interaction descriptors that tend to be consistent over a broad range of possible situations. Two works that explain indepth are "Non-zero, the logic of human destiny" Robert Wright and "The Science of Good and Evil" Michael Shermer.

Thanks Zorathruster!
I haven't read Wright, but Shermers "The Science of Good and Evil" was an exellent book.
I’m continually mystified that so many "naturalists" or "rationalists" do not accept these ideas, or at best, ignore them. Take the example from Octavions post,

are you laying bait for an abortion argument? Or are you asking whether its ever OK to molest, kill, dismember, living & breathing infants (after they're born that is)? If your asking the latter, then of course it's wrong and it always should be wrong.

Why? Why is it wrong?

Has it been practiced by other societies? Yes, unfortunately. Infanticide even occurred in Roman civilization (the founders of our Western civilization) with some regularity, and was tacidly tolerated. So even with regard to infanticide, morality has changed.

I would assert that infanticide was in large part responsible for the decline of Roman civilization, for various reasons. I believe that the acceptance of infanticide on a global scale would be detrimental to the well being of the human race, and therefore, immoral.

So maybe objective morality is a myth?

Objective morality can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Of course this also means that morality of some actions CAN change as the situation of mankind also changes. Even most theists have to admit that morals are situationally relative. ( If stealing is ALWAYS immoral, would it be immoral for me to steal the plans for the next attack on the U.S. from a terrorist group?)

[Minnesota]

There exists behaviors which are necessarily either moral or immoral. Moral behavior is. . . .

*snip*

. . .We know nothing of it and have no means of determining its nature.

The source of your OP?

[zorathruster]

The source of your OP?

My position statement! Behavior being the item of interest. Behavior falls into catagories amoral, immoral and moral. If you have any other types of behavior I would welcome your addition. A person judges that behavior. The judgement of that behavior yeilds one of the three possibilities. To judge something requires a particular standard to form a judgment. It is proposed that a standard exists called, "objective morality". No one can define exactly what it is, they just know it when they see it. I attempted to express my personal objections to the often expressed but never defined "objective morality" promoted by theists. I raised numerous objections, listed, with the proposed "objective morality" standard and the methodology where this standard would be transmitted to humans. If you can find fault with my objections, I would appreciate your input.

[Octavian]

Stinky:

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you've inferred. I agree with your assertion that infanticide contributed to Roman decline (and Greek decline as well); and I did say that I believe infanticide to be wrong in any form. I'm guessing that you either disagreed with my inferred pro-choice position on abortion (although I didn't expressly state a view), or my statement that "maybe objective morality is a myth." I'm not sure how I'm being pinned as a "naturalist" but I havn't read the book by Shermers and thus am unfamiliar with how Shermers defines rationalists & naturalists. If you would briefly explain I could always use some enlightenment!

When I said "maybe objective morality is a myth" the key word is 'maybe,' I never stated that subjective morality is necessarility desirable. Moreover, I also found the information offered by Zorathruster to be good stuff, but I'm not sure that the example you used "is it OK to steal the next terrorist plan" was particularly relevant. I would argue that stealing the next terrorist plan is self defense rather than stealing, which has always been acceptable to any society I can think of. Anyway, like i said I'm very interested to learn more about Shermers ideas on the topic (I'm a deployed reservist so I can't get a hold of the book myself).

oct

Thanks Zorathruster!
I haven't read Wright, but Shermers "The Science of Good and Evil" was an exellent book.
I’m continually mystified that so many "naturalists" or "rationalists" do not accept these ideas, or at best, ignore them. Take the example from Octavions post,



Why? Why is it wrong?

I would assert that infanticide was in large part responsible for the decline of Roman civilization, for various reasons. I believe that the acceptance of infanticide on a global scale would be detrimental to the well being of the human race, and therefore, immoral.

Objective morality can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Of course this also means that morality of some actions CAN change as the situation of mankind also changes. Even most theists have to admit that morals are situationally relative. ( If stealing is ALWAYS immoral, would it be immoral for me to steal the plans for the next attack on the U.S. from a terrorist group?)