Tim?

Sylogism for Objective Morality: 1. Action presupposes reasons -> To act intentionally is to take oneself to have reasons for acting. 2. Reasons must be universalizable -> A reason counts as rational only if it could justify action for any relevantly similar agent, not merely because it is "my" preference. 3. Agency is the capacity to recognize and act on reasons -> Agents are beings capable of understanding and acting for reasons. This capacity exists in varying degrees, including developing or partial forms. 4. Agency requires objective conditions -> To act for reasons, agents require certain generic goods: Life, bodily integrity, minimal freedom, and cognitive functioning. Without these conditions, agency is impossible. 5. Therefore every agent must value these conditions because these goods are necessary for any action at all, every agent must regard them as necessary for their own agency. 6. Denying them to others is arbitrary -> If an agent claims these goods are necessary for themselves but not for others, the justification becomes identity-based ("because it’s me"), which is not a rationally generalizable reason. 7. Therefore rational agents must recognize the agency of others -> Consistency requires recognizing that the same conditions that justify protecting one's own agency apply to other agents and developing agents as well. 8. Violating those conditions without justification frustrates agency -> Actions like killing, coercion, or torture unjustifiably destroy the preconditions that make agency possible. 9. A norm is objective if denying it requires a performative contradiction -> If one must rely on the agency the norm protects in order to reject it, the norm holds independently of personal preference. Conclusion: Unjustified destruction or frustration of agency is objectively wrong, because any rational agent must recognize and preserve the conditions that make agency possible.

@HingleMcCr64580 @darwintojesus If I could provide a single example of God torturing an innocent, what would that mean?

@Tim0riginal @darwintojesus Torturing innocents contradicts His nature because of epistemic humility applied consistently. Humility recognizes our limited view, but doesn’t erase God’s character

This atheist asks: do my moral intuitions tell me that if God commanded me to torture a child that it would be wrong? Yes they do. Here’s how I think about this. I’m pretty good at chess, I have strong intuitions about which moves are good and which ones aren’t. But if a chess master or a chess engine tells me that a move is good that I intuitively think of as terrible, should I take their word for it assuming they’re trustworthy? Yes, of course. Would that change my intuition about it being bad? No, I’d still think the move was bad intuitively, but I’d make the move and trust in their better judgement. In the same way, if God does in fact command something that I intuitively think of as immoral, well I’d have to assume I’m simply wrong. God can’t command immoral things just as a perfect chess engine cant recommend flawed moves.

Yeah idk. I don't think I know enough yet to be able to articulate a clear system of ethics. Virtue ethics sounds appealing to me but I have yet to investigate. Anything utilitarian though seems wrong on the basis that I wouldn't want my freedom or well-being to be taken away for "the greater good" without my consent.

@Tim0riginal Most people don't have a justifiable system of ethics if we're being honest.

I feel like this paints Christian ethics as some sort of utilitarian divine command theory. I've been asked several times by Christians "Would you kill baby Hitler?" My answer is always "no". Why? Because baby Hitler has done nothing wrong to deserve the death penalty. (Not to mention the fact that if I was omnipotent and omniscient, I'd be able to figure out a way to prevent the Holocaust without bloodshed). But in D2J's framework, without even knowing what baby Hitler will grow up to do, obeying a command from God to kill that baby would be the right thing to do.

@SavageTomas @darwintojesus Savage

@darwintojesus so if god told you to torture a child, you would do it and convince yourself that it is the good thing to do, because god can't be evil and your personal opinion on the matter are wrong. got it.

@HingleMcCr64580 @darwintojesus "Torturing innocents contradicts his nature" Where did that epistemic humility go?

@Tim0riginal @darwintojesus The chess analogy highlights epistemic humility…not that ‘anything God commands = good.’ If a perfectly good, omniscient Being exists, His commands flow from that goodness, not arbitrary whim. Torturing innocents contradicts His nature

@06DEX10 @darwintojesus 100%

@darwintojesus What utter bullshit, with your religion you can justify anything if you think your god says so, very very dangerous

@HingleMcCr64580 @darwintojesus So torturing the child would in fact be the right thing to do... Since you can't see the full picture?

@darwintojesus Great analogy. God never commands evil for evil’s sake. His commands always serve ultimate good, even when we can’t see the full picture.

@darwintojesus Wait wait wait... Did you just admit that if God commanded you to torture a child, your moral intuition would tell you that would be the wrong thing to do, but obeying would still be the right thing to do?

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins You think a dictionary definition is objective? You are very confused. If I write something down, does that make whatever I've written... Objective? Here I can play this game too:

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins Of that much we are in agreement - you are absolutely not using the word in the way English speakers have determined it to mean. Fortunately, there's an objective standard we can point to. By which I can say your use is wrong. Neat how that works, isn't it!

“It’s not really wrong unless the big guy says so.” It’s hard to imagine a more inadequate moral theory.

Ofc you run once I bring up the Bible. My claim is that your moral framework is not objective. Objective means independent of mind or stance. God has a mind and a stance. He has goals, desires, and intentions. In your worldview, something is wrong if it doesn't align with God's goals, desires or intentions. God could have all sorts of purposes for people, and all of them would be subjective, meaning dependent on his goals, desires, and intentions. What reason would I have to follow God's purpose for me? Why ought I obey your God? If you want to see an actual mind and stance independent moral framework, I have a pinned tweet on my profile for an argument in favor of a Godless objective morality, largely derived from the works of Alen Gewirth. Based on this extremely confused "conversation" I doubt you'll be able to understand it.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins - topic at hand versus your deflections and sidetrackings, and are more interested in making up your own meaning for words (something you have no right to do) rather than listen... ...your ears have abused the respect needed for my mouth to continue, and no longer have it.

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins I'm all ears on what the purpose that God supposedly gives us is...

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins - it contradicts two of the purposes humans were created for. Purposes you still have no idea about. No, Leviticus' method of pursuing one of those purposes, and a separate purpose, was not immoral - because it fulfilled human purpose.

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins And what purpose is that?

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins That is not subjective. That is objective - every human has this purpose, set by God. Every human thus has this morality, too. Now - do you have any way to provide an objective, unchanging, constant standard, uniform to all people, *without* a creator?

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins Define "objective" because I don't think we're using the same word here.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins And no. The objective rule maker for something, setting the objective rule for that thing, is not subjective. Again: That's not how words work.

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins Leviticus 25:44-46 allowed the Israelites to purchase people from foreign nations and own them as property. Is it stealing to go to war with a people group and take their virgin girls and livestock as plunder? Sounds like armed robbery to me.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins Yup. It's also immoral to steal, in case you think you had some gotcha there. Though I suspect you'll need that explained to you as to why that undermines the point you thought you were making.

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins Good and bad flowing from purpose given by unchanging subject... Is subjective. And "The morality set in Genesis remains" is a claim that many Christians reject. Is it immoral to own people as property?

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins -your experience with it involved someone being unfair and changing the rules on you does not mean the base purposes of humanity are being changed. God does not change. The purposes set in Genesis remain. Thus, the morality set in Genesis remains.

Well no, I never made that claim. And saying "Atheism can provide a moral standard" is a confused statement. Maybe I, a human person, could provide a standard (which I showed that I subjectively could) that needs no creator. My original claim was that your "moral framework" where good and bad are determined by purpose sounded extremely subjective and I stand by that.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins I need you to answer questions about the basics before we go into more esoteric areas. This conversation started because you said atheism can provide a moral standard without a creator. I'm waiting for you to tell me how, and what it is. Do that instead of deflecting.

There is so much here I don't even know where to start. I did not create any humans, but my mom created me and gave me rules to live by when I was a child, but all of those rules were subjective. Does God creating humans give him the right to say, torture babies for fun? If God decided to revoke our purpose, would we no longer have purpose? And if he can, how can we meaningfully say we actually have some sort of intrinsic purpose if it can be taken away at any time? What purpose does God even give us?

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins At best, you can *recognize* a moral standard. But again, as already explained, that requires a purpose. So - what purpose do humans have? And where does that purpose come from - since again, 'because I felt like it should be that' is not a valid option.

@AleMartnezR1 Sounds like you believe that the universe is God.

What convinces me that God exists, from an evidential point of view. 1. Order and purpose in the universe 2. Laws of nature that regulate physics, chemistry, and biology 3. The beginning of the universe 4. Beauty 5. Irreducible complexity in biology 6. The existence of genetic information 7. The regularities of the movement of the planets 8. The fine-tuning of the parameters in the universe, life in our solar system, and on the Earth.

Ok well I can make up a moral standard and call it objective then. Reducing harm and increasing well-being is the objective. That's the goal of the moral chess game I've subjectively chosen. Everyone who agrees to play is participating in the game of morality, which has better and worse moves based on the objective.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins Does not answer the question... Yes, the people entrusted with the game can decide things for it. That does not change that 'good' or 'bad' moves require a purpose. Which is why atheism, which provides no purpose for humans, cannot make moral judgements.

@TectusVulpes @SpeedWatkins The rules of chess were decided upon by subjects and rules of chess have changed over time... Historically 8 times.

@Tim0riginal @SpeedWatkins - condition, not even a 'reason' of playing like 'have fun' or 'touch every square', but just aimlessly moving pieces wherever you feel, without reason... ...how would you then claim a move is 'good' or 'bad'? What standard would you have to make such judgements by?