You are confusing two completely different things; Matters of fact, and matter of opinion.
It can never be factual that killing is right or wrong. Morals do not render facts. — charleton

So then are you saying that when a person murders, it is because he is going against the opinions of the majority of people?

life exists and seems to have forced itself into existence — matt

How could it have forced itself into existence before it existed?

(something like Schopenhauer's Will) — matt

You have to demonstrate that there is some sort of will and not just a case of the because of the physical laws and conditions of the universe, life just happened to come about.

Is intrinsic morality the same as objective morality? — matt

I don't think so because something can be intrinsically valuable to a person.

It's objectively morally wrong because murder annihilates the person's ability to valuate at all. — matt

It would be wrong with presupposed values that are consistent with allowing others to have the ability to valuate. However how can you demonstrate that that those presupposed values aren't just what you or majority of people feel or think is right vs. some objective moral standard that describes what actually is right or wrong.

A belief is an acceptance that something is true right? Someone can accept a claim that is based off of scientific thinking, or nonscientific thinking.

When you say non-beliefism, aren't you essentially saying that we should only accept things to be true based off of scientific thinking? Which is like saying even though belief as a concept permits nonscientific thinking, don't allow any nonscientific element in your beliefs. Or are you saying that we shouldn't accept anything as true at all?

I've studied quite a bit of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and I've come to realize that the same principles which make reality intelligible are also the principles which support the notion of free will. This starts with the fundamental difference between past and future which we all recognize in our daily existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm interested to hear this. So how do we go from our understandings of past and future to free will?

Universal generalisations are not empirical facts, nor are they even empirical statements. Rather they are proposed rules for generating new hypotheses for pragmatic purposes. For example, accepting my previous universal statement means that I condone the invention of a testable hypothesis such as "the next ten swans observed will be white". — sime

Yes they are generalizations for generating new hypotheses for pragmatic purposes. However, as a determinist, if you are accepting those generalizations, then you are accepting that those generalizations also apply to the human. So for pragmatic reasons it would be rational to look at consciousness as though the generalizations that also apply to it. I don't see how you could interpret determinism in a way that gives you consciousness that also isn't dependent on the deterministic generalizations, unless you believe that consciousness isn't dependent on the brain (that it is some sort of soul).

Morality is intrinsic if you would allow me to extend intrinsic to mean natural. Murder is socially reprehensible and therefore reprehensible to human existence. Humans cannot survive without socialism. — matt

The title of this thread is a little misleading now, but I don't expect you to read all the replies. My position now is that objective morality hasn't been demonstrated. So as you say murder is socially reprehensible, that is because many humans generally value life and safety. Since those presupposition values are subjective, that doesn't demonstrate that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

If we hold the opinion "killing is bad" as merely a subjective value with nothing objective that gives it content, than it would be equally viable that all animals and people just slaughter each other, as it is to continue living. — Dalibor

No actions could be demonstrated to be objectively morally right or wrong, yes. So essentially when someone does kill, we'd be saying they are morally wrong in the context of our presupposition values. And if majority of people agree on those values in a society, then they will condemn and punish a murderer.

If we accept that life objectively strives towards preserving and continuing itself, it then follows that refrain from killing is also objective, whatever some group of people may think. History knows for very blood-thirsty tribes, who saw killing as normal, and yet it is not. — Dalibor

Even if hypothetically every single life form refrained from needlessly killing, that wouldn't give the act of needlessly killing any more or less objective moral value. That would just mean if someone decides to kill, they are going against what all other life forms value. But not against some objective moral standard.

Objective either means true regardless of opinion;
True whether or not any one even knows it is true;
Or just some stuff that the establishment tells you is true.

What's it gonna be? — charleton

True in the same sense that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if every person thought it was. Similarly, just because everyone thinks it is objectively morally wrong to kill doesn't mean it actually is.

I agree with you in that dividing the two may be demonstrably impossible in an absolute sense. We can't absolutely know that it is objectively true that the earth is not flat. However in terms of the way we generally use the word knowledge and objective, we can demonstrate that it is objectively true the earth is not flat. In those terms I am not convinced we can say that it true that killing is objectively morally wrong. We can only say killing is bad after presuppositions of values which are not objective in the same sense that the earth not being flat is objective.

If I ask someone if they believe there is an even or odd number of gumballs in the jar, what I mean by that statement is do they have conscious confidence that it is true, not whether or not they have conscious confidence that it is likely to be true. If I was wondering about what they would pick because they are more inclined towards it because of brain mechanisms that they aren't aware of, I would ask which do you believe is more likely to be true or "oh you don't believe either is true? which would you pick if you had to pick one". This is generally assumed when we speak about beliefs. It's how we use them in a practical sense.

I don't really disagree with you when it comes to absolute belief. And sure this is a philosophy forum so we can get technical if you want.

I'm just saying that it if we are gonna tell someone that they don't simply lack belief because they have some belief in an absolute sense rather than the way we use the term in practical terms, then we might as well also tell people who claim to know something that they don't actually know it in an absolute sense. Or we can assume when someone knows something, knowledge is used in practical terms and belief is used in practical terms (the way we generally use the word belief).

So no I don't really disagree with you, I just think the way you use the word belief is different than the atheist when they say they lack belief. And if you want to get nitpicky with that, I don't see why you wouldn't tell people that they don't know every time they claim to know something. But generally people assume the word belief and the word knowledge are being used in a practical sense.

The way I see it is that if something evolved over time on the level of all that is living, that automatically means that it had to be so as the consequence of an objective universal principle. If the act of killing is an exception (a deviation) in all that is living, doesn't that mean that there is an objective principle behind it? If think it has to be the case, and if we don't agree here than this discussion must go towards more general subject than the one we are now discussing. — Dalibor

I don't agree. Just because something is doesn't give it any objective ought morality value. You can get to an objective morality in this case only after you've laid out presupposition values. You can say that you value (meaning it is important to you) life, therefore it is objectively true that in that context of those values it is morally wrong to kill. But those values are subjective. Someone else may value differently. Even if every single living organism values life, that doesn't make it objectively morally wrong to kill. It means that based off of what all living things value (which is subjective), in that context there are some things that actions that are better to express a value than others. To say that it is objectively true however, you have to demonstrate that there is some objective moral value that exists outside of what anyone values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRguTJhTlYQ If you start this video at 5 minutes I think it does a good job of describing my position in case it's still unclear.

If you from the other side believe that killing is just as natural as non-killing, all kinds of facts become difficult to explain, like for example why there is relatively little bloodshed in nature compared with peaceful life today, — Dalibor

I already addressed this point

And as life was evolving to have the ability to needlessly kill, it was also evolving the predisposition to not needlessly kill because it that predisposition was useful — SonJnana

why there was no predation in early stages of life (the argument you try to make does not stand, since viruses for example are extremely simple organisms yet they are destroying cells more complex than them) — Dalibor

1. Viruses are not considered organisms. They are non-living

2. Even if hypothetically they were living organisms, they kill cells because it's necessary. That's not the same thing as needlessly killing.

That's not an accurate description of what's going on, though.
It's not irrational because, as I said before, we need our brains to make these decisions in order to function in the world.
It's not necessarily subconscious. It could be, I'm sure, but it doesn't have to be.
It's not a prejudice, because prejudice is defined as a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". These beliefs are based on both reason and experience. — JustSomeGuy

We'll just call it subconscious then.

Is it not more rational to settle one way or the other so you can move on with life and not need to devote any more time to contemplating this issue? — JustSomeGuy

It could be rational. I can still move on with life and not decide which one is true and never come back to this issue rather than devoting more time to contemplating this issue. It would be irrational to consciously take a position when I can't consciously come up with a rational argument. Unless of course you have nothing to lose and you're just guessing. But that's the position people generally take when they say they I believe this is more likely. And when they say they believe that something is true it's because they generally mean they think that it is consciously rationally justifiable unless stated otherwise. If you ask them why they believe something is true and they say they can't come up with a consciously rational argument then that's all there is to it.

That was never my implication. Only that claiming to lack belief is nonsense. Atheism means the belief that a deity does not exist. — JustSomeGuy

I don't really care about labels. As long as there is understanding on a position that's all that matters. I think that most people who say they are atheistic in the sense that they lack a belief in god would pretty much take the position that I have been describing about myself. In that there is no burden of proof. As long as you understand their position, I don't think you have to get all technical about absolute belief and such.

Okay how about this then. It is true that I do believe (in terms of absolute belief) that god does not exist because of some irrational subconscious prejudice. I acknowledge this. Yet through my conscious reasoning I cannot rationalize an argument that god exists or does not exists. Therefore I will not claim that it is rational to believe god exists or claim that it is rational to believe god does not exist.

Yet I still lack the belief that god exists therefore I am an atheist. Through conscious reasoning I say that the most rational position is to simply lack belief in both. Yet I am physically incapable of absolutely lacking belief in both. However since I acknowledge that it is just an irrational subconscious prejudice, I do not have to defend that. If someone on the other hand claims that it is rational to believe god exists or rational to believe that god does not exist, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why it is rational.

Are you going to make every person who claims that they are atheist say this? Because that was actually kind of tough lol.

So because I don't see things from your point of view and wanted to look at things in a more absolute and detailed manner you're going to be passive aggressive towards me? That's not a productive attitude. — JustSomeGuy

I apologize I should not have stated it that way.

You can hold beliefs with varying convictions. It isn't all or nothing. Most people who believe in a god or believe that there is no god are still open (to varying degrees) to the possibility that their belief is incorrect. Not being open to any possibilities other than what you believe is what is truly irrational. You're talking about certainty. This has never been a conversation about certainty--quite the opposite, in fact. — JustSomeGuy

So what if people have a very very slight subconscious irrational prejudice (that they may not even be aware of) towards something? Yeah you're right it is a belief if you are talking about some sort of absolute belief. But then we might as well say nobody knows that there is a chair in front of them because they can't be certain that Satan isn't tricking them into believing that. Yet we don't, we say we know there is a chair in front of them because it is practical. This is how statements about practical knowledge are used.

When people use the word knowledge it is assumed that it is practical knowledge not absolute knowledge. If someone says they lack belief in god it's because what they are saying they are using in terms of practical belief. They might have some sort of irrational prejudice (that they may not even be aware of) towards believing that god exists or not but so what? That's not the same as asserting that god exists or does not exist.

I am perfectly fine with saying I lack belief in god (practical belief) and yet acknowledging that I may have some unconscious irrational prejudice towards believing that god exists or does not exist. When people ask me if I believe or not, they're asking about the former not the latter. If I assert god exists I have to defend it. If I acknowledge that I have an irrational subconscious prejudice, I do not have to defend that.

If you want to go into absolutes you can go on ahead and be solipsistic.

I am saying that it doesn't matter if I have some irrational prejudice that inclines me towards believing that it is slightly more likely that A is true and B is not. In fact, it doesn't even matter if I have a conscious rational inclination to believe that A is true and B is not.

If there are 5 red balls and 4 red balls in a bag, I may believe that it is more likely to be red so I have an inclination towards guessing red if I am forced to, but that does not mean that I believe red will be picked.

It's entirely possible that in a world of no objective morality, life at it's inception did not have the ability to needlessly kill because it was too unsophisticated. And as life was evolving to have the ability to needlessly kill, it was also evolving the predisposition to not needlessly kill because it that predisposition was useful (needlessly killing does not include killing for survival purposes).

Just because life did not have the ability to needlessly kill doesn't not mean that it was due to some objective moral principle. It may have been due to the fact that the laws of physics were only able to create life that was too unsophisticated at it's inception to have the ability to needlessly kill.

What? That's missing the whole point of philosophy. I'm really surprised you're so dismissive about this on a philosophy forum. What would this website be for if we just said that everything is exactly as it is defined in our dictionaries and everyone is correct in their beliefs and views, and we should not question any of it because it should be respected? Philosophy wouldn't even exist. — JustSomeGuy

Words are defined differently in philosophical arguments all the time. When someone makes a proof and uses a word that is ambiguous, people generally will ask "how do you define [the word]". I think the atheist is only at fault if they are purposely trying to deceive you knowing that you think it will mean something different that what they mean. The atheist may not even realize that you are viewing the word differently. That's why it's important for both parties to clear up any misunderstanding they think may happen. For the sake of argument in philosophy, people are allowed to redefine words as long as they are clear. So the only thing I get from this is that there should be more awareness about the misunderstanding of the word atheist so that whenever the word atheist is used it is defined more clearly because it is a word that is ambiguous.

Well, firstly, it's not true that you have no evidence. You have your own visual evidence--you see the jar and the gumballs in front of you. — JustSomeGuy

That is evidence that there are gumballs in front of me. That is not evidence that supports either claims of there being an even amount or an odd amount.

You also have your past experience--maybe you have seen gumballs in a container before and there was an even number of them--that would influence your reasoning, even if only a little. — JustSomeGuy

That's clearly not sufficient evidence to rationalize a belief that in this jar this an even amount. Are you saying I should be more set on believing that in this jar it's even because I remember counting a jar in 5th grade that had an even amount? On top of that, it's also possible that you have never known how many gumballs were in a jar ever in your life. So yes it is possible to have no evidence that supports either claim.

Our brains do not operate in such a way to allow that. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have a belief one way or the other. That belief may change often, but at any given moment you either believe that a deity does exist or that it doesn't — JustSomeGuy

You might have a subconscious irrational prejudice to varying degrees either way sure, but the expression of that only tells you that if you had to pick even or odd, you think there's a very very very slight chance that it is more likely that there is even than odd. So if there is a gun to your head you'll be more inclined to pick even although you're not aware why. But even saying that you consciously rationally believe something is more likely than other options does not mean that you believe that option is true.

If there is someone convicted and some evidence showed up to support that the criminal did it, that does not mean that I believe the criminal did it. That only means I believe that it is more likely. That does not mean I believe that it is true.

Believing something is more likely to be true does not mean believing it to be true.

1. A world where it is objectively morally wrong to kill so organisms don't kill

2. A world where it is not objectively morally wrong to kill, however organisms want to survive, so they've evolved to become predisposed to have an emotional component to not kill needlessly because its useful (unless it's for food or threat of danger).

How do we distinguish that it is 1 and not 2?

It is possible to lack a belief. If you look at a jar with gumballs, do you believe that there is an even amount of gumballs in that jar? Probably not, rightfully so. That doesn't mean you believe that there is not an even number (and therefore there is an odd number). You lack the belief that there is an even number and lack the belief that there is an odd number because you have no evidence for either way.

If someone tells you there is an even number, you'd ask them how they determined that. If someone tells you there is an odd number, you'd ask them how they determined that.

Atheism as defined in dictionaries is a lack of belief. If it's in the dictionary and people want to use a word the way it's defined in the dictionary, I think that should be respected. If someone says they are atheist, just ask them what they mean by that so you can understand their position. As long as they tell you they lack a belief then what's the issue? They've clarified for you and you can continue conversation from there.

Because I believe in free will, and for the reasons discussed already, I believe free will is incompatible with determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you believe in free will?

You agree that even if every single organism believed that the earth is flat, it would still be objectively true that the earth is not flat, right? If so we agree on definitions.

Now you have to demonstrate that even if every single organism believed that it is acceptable to kill including humans, that it would still be objectively true that it is morally wrong to kill. If the claim that it is wrong to kill is dependent on what any organism believes, thinks, or feels, then it is not objectively true.

So you believe that determinism isn't true? Why do you believe that?

Even if that were hypothetically true for every single animal, all that means is that it is objectively true that animals have a predisposition to having emotional responses against killing. If that is just a predisposition that came about through evolution, that is not a demonstration that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

It may or may not be true. But yes I agree there are more pressing issues because there is a lot more we need to understanding about the universe before claiming that it is deterministic or not.

What did you explain? It just happened? Some particles interacted and Voila! existence? And particles and interactions? The Big Bang Genesis)? Where do they come from? As I said, Determinism is a religion. It is just the same story told for eons with different words and to understand this gives one insights into how religions develop. It is part of the human journey. — Rich

Our whole discussion started when you quoted half of my sentence in a post where I had said assuming determinism. Then you went on to say in a deterministic world there would be no meaning and that humans couldn't give meaning to anything to which I refuted. Then you tried to refute that by saying in a deterministic world there could be no way that experience the way humans experience it could arise to which I was trying to refute. But instead of reading what I was saying you dismissed it and acted self-righteous.

And now you're completely changing the argument and saying "well oh you have to demonstrate determinism." But I never even claimed that determinism is true. I don't have to demonstrate anything. I was just saying that your logic is flawed when you say that determinism can't be true because humans experience things.

To leapfrom matter interacts with energy to the whole universe and everything we feel and experience is what is called faith. You want this story to be taken seriously, then start being serious and don't expect me to get excited over every story that people can make up. — Rich

You say that I have to explain it. And when I attempt to explain it you ignore the questions I had asked and dismiss my attempt. Anyway I'm not wasting my time anymore on your self-righteousness LOL

So matter interacts with matter. Ok. And the rest of the story, I mean the whole story... pure, unadulterated story telling, of the most creative type. — Rich

You've agreed that matter interacts with matter and energy. Is the case of a virus and/or bacteria also just matter and energy interacting with matter and energy. Chemistry and physics? Yes or No?

Also, do you have any reason to believe that anything in our universe is independent from cause and effect? Yes or no?

You can answer these questions so we can have a productive discussion. You can also just dismiss them and go on with your condescending statements in which case I'll just laugh at myself for realizing I engaged with a troll for so long.

Obviously this alternative is rubbish. How would you even make that 'discovery'? — charleton

I don't know. That is up to the one claiming that there is an objective morality to demonstrate.

Just because many/majority people have agreed that it is morally wrong to kill, the only objective statement about that is that it is objectively true that many/majority of people believe that it is objectively wrong to kill. That isn't a demonstration that it actually is objectively morally wrong to kill.

If you agree that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if everyone believed it was flat, then we agree on definitions for objectivity. If not, then this argument would just be a misunderstanding.

When humans say it is objectively wrong to kill is it because

1. they discovered/have knowledge about an objective morality where it is objectively wrong to kill

or a possible alternative

2. They constructed this idea that it is morally wrong to kill because they realized it was useful even though it’s actually not objectively wrong to kill. Similar to believing the Earth is flat even though it's not objectively true that the earth is flat. Then humans evolved to be predisposed to believe it is objectively wrong to kill and/or people growing up in society are socially conditioned from a young age to believe that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

Can you demonstrate why it would be the first case and not an alternative in which it is not objectively wrong to kill?

And that is about it. The rest is a magical mystery tale, conjured up by atheists so that they have their own God to worship. It is really quite amazing to observe. Basically it demonstrates that everyone needs their own God whatever the name they choose to use. — Rich

Why don't you actually read what I have to say and explain what about it and why it is you disagree with it rather than dismiss it and make condescending statements? Are you just a troll? lol

Where is it that you draw the line so I can understand your logic? You agree that matter interacts with matter so if acid is put in water it will dissociate to make an acidic aqueous solution. Do you agree that a virus is also a bunch of reactions that are more complex? And what about bacteria then?

A group of matter that is experiencing? Care to take a stab at the line of demarcation and how that group is performing that trick. Are they talking to each other? — Rich

I don’t think it’s that mysterious. Matter interacts with other matter and energy. We can see this at the less sophisticated forms of life like bacteria. A lizard is also dependent on matter and energy. A lizard is more sophisticated than bacteria so it can interact in more complex ways. But it is still just a bunch of chemical reactions and physics. Many mammals can take it a step further where because of the way they happen to be, they will react to more social cues because through evolution it was useful. And Humans have taken it all a step further where we’ve evolved to be able to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our own thoughts. More of an internal awareness. But it’s all just reactions.

Do you believe in a soul? If so, I ask why. From my studies, there is nothing in psychology to suggest that psychology is anything but biology. Biology is chemistry, and chemistry is physics.

As for meaning, it is all about illusion. Hence, an enlightened Determinist realizes that life has no meaning because they are able to see right through the illusion. — Rich

Can an “enlightened Determinist” honestly doubt to themselves that eating something causes electrochemical messages to their brain that they experience as tastey? (in the practical sense that we use the word tastey).

It's amazing that there are grown adults who actually believe all this. — Rich

Chill lol

You believe in determinism, yes?
Determinism as I understand it is that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event. Therefore the event of one making a decision would be due to past conditions that could cause no other event, yes?

The only argument that I've come across with compatibilists in the past is that they redefine free will as a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will. Hume also redefines free will this way (you can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

However that misses the whole point of what hard determinists mean when they say there is no free will. If you redefine free will that way, you aren't taking a different position than hard determinists in their argument. You are forming a completely different argument because free will has been redefined. I doubt many hard determinists would argue that there isn't a clear difference between a decision where eat pizza because you like it and a decision where you eat pizza because there is a person holding a gun to your head telling you to eat pizza.

I'm not sure I understand your position on this so could you clarify?

There is no I in a deterministic world. It is all an illusion. Enlightened Determinists realize that they are not enjoying anything. All is without meaning. — Rich

I is the word given to a group of matter that is experienced. Meaning can be given to things through experience even if they don't mean anything in an ultimate sense. Just because there may be no ultimate meaning to a table, doesn't mean I can give meaning to it based off of how I experience it. This is practical knowledge and practical meaning.

for the ability to consider something as "being determined" involves active choice on behalf of the cognizer. — sime

It involves the person thinking that the universe is determined. But it could also have already been determined that the person would be thinking that the universe is determined. So I don't really see why that wouldn't work.

You may think that you care only as long as determinism determines you should care. It may halt this illusion whenever it sees fit. — Rich

So what? In a non deterministic world, there's always a chance that I develop a brain trauma and stop caring about people anymore. Or die. Just because it could end eventually doesn't mean that I don't care right now.

I can assure you that everything is quite meaningless having already been determined. — Rich

Haven't you ever gotten into a movie and enjoyed it even though you know it's determined? In a deterministic world, I can still eat ice cream and enjoy the experience. The ice cream has meaning to me, I value it. It is important to me because I like eating it.

If you look up the definition of the word atheist on google, you will scroll through a bunch of dictionaries that define atheism as a lack of belief or disbelief in god. A lack of belief of a claim does not mean that one believes the claim is false. It simply means there is a lack of belief that the claim is true.

In common talk a lot of people use the word atheist to mean the belief there is no god and use agnosticism as a middle ground. While a lot of people who call themselves atheist don't use that definition. They use the definition of lack of belief of god, which is in the dictionary. And using that definition, they have no burden of proof.

I think that when someone says they are an atheist, what is important is that you just ask them to clarify their position. Most self-identified atheists that I know would say that it is just a lack of belief, which is in the dictionary. As long as you understand someone's position, I don't think it matters anymore. At that point you'd just be arguing about semantics of a word which is pointless and distracts from the conversation you would have had.

The way you are looking at determinism... maybe decisions, you, trauma, etc. don't mean anything in some ultimate sense but they still mean something in some practical sense. In a practical sense you know what I mean by those words.

Determinism makes everything meaningless including this discussion. It is quite a philosophy. — Rich

Just because I acknowledge that I care about my family because of the way my brain state is, which is just a part of a chain of cause and effects, doesn't mean I don't care about my family or that they are meaningless to me. That's kind of silly lol. Determinism may make things meaningless in an ultimate sense, but we can still value things. In fact it may even give more meaning. I can reflect on the fact that hormones and neurotransmitters go off when I see my family as a cause and effect so I can be more in tune with the fact that I care about them.

Your discussion of brain states is irrelevant as far as determinism is concerned. You might as well talk about toenail states. There is only a universal state that miraculously maintains illusionary forms for the amusement if itself. — Rich

When I am saying brain states I mean that the way the brain is at a certain point. So if you went through a traumatic experience, the physical state of your brain would be altered and now you would make decisions based off of the state of your brain now rather than before the traumatic experience. That's all causal and very relevant to determinism.

Quantum mechanics is certainly not random. If it were it couldn't predict anything. It is probabilistic and is consistent with decision processes that could include choice, as Bohm demonstrated. — Rich

I was just saying that regardless if particles had determinism or hypothetically randomness to them, no combination of those two would give free will.