[InsaneBaron]

Do I think my morality is the only correct one? No. Do I think the morality of, say, Nazi Germany was incorrect? Absolutely.

This a really good summary of the situation, actually. I might not understand the calculations of quantum physics, but if my little brother adds two and two and gets five, I can tell he's wrong. I'm not claiming moral omniscience here, but I can understand the basics. The idea that people have intrinsic value is literally the entire basis for human morality; any concept of rights, good or evil actions, et cetera, stems either from this or from an error in reasoning.

[InsaneBaron]

There's a difference between saying "What the Nazis did was bad and we need to do our best to stop it from happening again" and "I have no idea how they did these things when it was clearly wrong".

We know how they did these things, just check Mein Kampf. Doesn't mean they were right.

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

[Phantom Hoover]

If all foetuses are human beings with intrinsic moral value why are you so apparently unconcerned that most human beings die in the earliest stages of development? Wouldn't reducing those mortality rates be an urgent moral imperative from your perspective?

[Scotty]

You just made a bunch a judgements regarding moral value. On what grounds?

@The_E: So according to you, we don't have a right to condemn to holocaust? I mean, what, then, makes our morality better then that of the Nazis, or your morality better than mine, if there's no objective standard to measure them against?

You want to apply an objective standard to tens of thousands of years of human history spanning thousands of different cultures and civilizations, and you ask me on what grounds I make my value judgments?

I like to think I've been pretty consistent with my position.  Bodily Integrity (that is, once again, the concept of being ultimately and personally responsible for every part of one's own body) is easy enough.  If we don't agree on that, there's absolutely no point in continuing this line of discussion because it's a fundamental disagreement that is irreconcilable.  What you do with your body (and all the things that follow from that) is how we define our value.  "Value" is subjective.  I value a friend more than I value a person I have never met.  I value an upstanding citizen more than I value a convicted felon.  So does society.  So do you, unless you seriously mean to tell me that you would have a crisis of faith if asked to choose between your mother and a convicted rapist.  Our value is what we make of it, and our value to other people is what they make of it.

EDIT: Synonyms might not be the best idea in this discussion.

[InsaneBaron]

If all foetuses are human beings with intrinsic moral value why are you so apparently unconcerned that most human beings die in the earliest stages of development? Wouldn't reducing those mortality rates be an urgent moral imperative from your perspective?

Unconcerned? Not at all. Unfortunately There's a lot less that can be done about that problem. Besides, there's a big difference between people dying natural deaths (which happens to most of us) and the government claiming a certain group of people have no right to live and can be deliberately killed.

[The E]

There's a difference between saying "What the Nazis did was bad and we need to do our best to stop it from happening again" and "I have no idea how they did these things when it was clearly wrong".

We know how they did these things, just check Mein Kampf. Doesn't mean they were right.

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

I thought it was obvious. Nothing. If someone 80 years from now discusses our moral standards, we will probably seem horrible in any number of ways. The point is that you cannot apply your moral standards to the past as if they had applied at the time, when it's pretty clear that they didn't. As I said, saying that you do not wish to return to the moral standards of the past is one thing, condemning the past for not following your standards is quite another.

Objective Morality? There is no such thing. If there was, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

[InsaneBaron]

You just made a bunch a judgements regarding moral value. On what grounds?

@The_E: So according to you, we don't have a right to condemn to holocaust? I mean, what, then, makes our morality better then that of the Nazis, or your morality better than mine, if there's no objective standard to measure them against?

You want to apply an objective standard to tens of thousands of years of human history spanning thousands of different cultures and civilizations, and you ask me on what grounds I make my value judgments?

Well, I provided a grounds for such judgements, and explained that it could be derived from human reason in much the same way as math. I simply wanted to know what your grounds were, and whether or not they could be applied outside of modern America.

"Value" is subjective. 

If so, we have no grounds on which to tell another person that what they are doing is wrong.

I value a friend more than I value a person I have never met.  I value an upstanding citizen more than I value a convicted felon.  So does society.  So do you, unless you seriously mean to tell me that you would have a crisis of faith if asked to choose between your mother and a convicted rapist.  Our value is what we make of it, and our value to other people is what they make of it.

I'd certainly choose my mother over a convicted rapist. To choose otherwise would be objectively wrong. If value is what we make of it, why are you able to condemn, say, the actions of the Colorado Springs shooter? He had his views, you had yours, and if we're free to make up our own values, what makes yours better than his?

[InsaneBaron]

There's a difference between saying "What the Nazis did was bad and we need to do our best to stop it from happening again" and "I have no idea how they did these things when it was clearly wrong".

We know how they did these things, just check Mein Kampf. Doesn't mean they were right.

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

I thought it was obvious. Nothing. If someone 80 years from now discusses our moral standards, we will probably seem horrible in any number of ways. The point is that you cannot apply your moral standards to the past as if they had applied at the time, when it's pretty clear that they didn't. As I said, saying that you do not wish to return to the moral standards of the past is one thing, condemning the past for not following your standards is quite another.

Objective Morality? There is no such thing. If there was, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

If there is no actual morality, these discussions are pointless because neither of us is right or wrong. The whole stipulation of the debate is that one of us is closer to the truth than the other. Otherwise, why do you waste your time trying to change my mind?

So, according to your standards, the holocaust was justified because the people in that time and place said it was? Think about this for a minute. Better yet, ask a Jew about it. (Which I've done myself).

[GhylTarvoke]

I thought it was obvious. Nothing. If someone 80 years from now discusses our moral standards, we will probably seem horrible in any number of ways. The point is that you cannot apply your moral standards to the past as if they had applied at the time, when it's pretty clear that they didn't. As I said, saying that you do not wish to return to the moral standards of the past is one thing, condemning the past for not following your standards is quite another.

Objective Morality? There is no such thing. If there was, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

This is utterly fascinating. It's now crystal clear that our mindsets are irreconcilable, but not for the reason I expected.

I do believe in objective morality. No doubt you find my position as ludicrous as I find yours.

[Scotty]

I'd certainly choose my mother over a convicted rapist. To choose otherwise would be objectively wrong. If value is what we make of it, why are you able to condemn, say, the actions of the Colorado Springs shooter? He had his views, you had yours, and if we're free to make up our own values, what makes yours better than his?

Wow.  This is a truly impressive misunderstanding of what I meant, or it's a truly impressive deliberate misrepresentation of the same.  "Value is what we make of it" is a personal matter, not a societal matter.  I personally value friends more than I do enemies or people I have never met (and so do you).  I personally value an upstanding member of society more than a convicted rapist.  These are the values I have assigned to these categories, and they are continually influenced and in turn influence my morality.  I personally hate violence, and view murder (that is to say the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another) as especially heinous.  So do you!  So does society, largely because society has placed the same value impact on murder that I have (or vice versa, influences are everywhere).

You may noticed that absolutely nowhere have I ever said that mine was better or worse than anyone else's.  This is an incredibly important concept to grasp: I am no more important to any other arbitrary person as that person is important to me.  My morality isn't superior, but it is mine.  This is arguably why society is so important!  It is an amalgamation of the views and values of everyone that it includes.

I think I'm beginning to see why you prefer an objective interpretation of morality, though.  It's much easier to feel superior about it when someone else had to do all the ground work.

So, according to your standards, the holocaust was justified because the people in that time and place said it was? Think about this for a minute. Better yet, ask a Jew about it. (Which I've done myself).

This is utterly laughable.  The entire world decided that the Holocaust was an abominable thing.  And that's even leaving aside that the vast majority of the German people didn't even know the extent of it until near the end of the war.  Your attempt to turn this thread into a literal Godwin is incredibly flimsy.

[InsaneBaron]

Scotty, you're missing the point. I'm going to resort to clarifying questions.

A. Is the societal value system of modern America better than that of any other society?
B. If no, are all societal value systems equal?
C. Is your morality better than mine?
D. If yes, why?

[GhylTarvoke]

This is utterly laughable.  The entire world decided that the Holocaust was an abominable thing.  And that's even leaving aside that the vast majority of the German people didn't even know the extent of it until near the end of the war.  Your attempt to turn this thread into a literal Godwin is incredibly flimsy.

For the sake of argument, what if nearly everyone decided that the Holocaust was a good thing?

[Scotty]

Scotty, you're missing the point. I'm going to resort to clarifying questions.

A. Is the societal value system of modern America better than that of any other society?
B. If no, are all societal value systems equal?
C. Is your morality better than mine?
D. If yes, why?

And you're missing mine, because I answered every single thing you just asked in the last post.

A) Of course not, because there is no such thing as objective morality, and the relative quality of a societal value system is by its very nature linked to the society.  If there were, morality would be the same 1000 years ago as it is now, and that's emphatically untrue.  The societal value system of the modern US is the best societal value system of the modern US.
B) See above.
C) I actually answered this one word for ****ing word.  Emphasis added so you don't miss it again.

You may noticed that absolutely nowhere have I ever said that mine was better or worse than anyone else's.  This is an incredibly important concept to grasp: I am no more important to any other arbitrary person as that person is important to me.  My morality isn't superior, but it is mine.  This is arguably why society is so important!  It is an amalgamation of the views and values of everyone that it includes.

D) See above.

[InsaneBaron]

Scotty, you're missing the point. I'm going to resort to clarifying questions.

A. Is the societal value system of modern America better than that of any other society?
B. If no, are all societal value systems equal?
C. Is your morality better than mine?
D. If yes, why?

And you're missing mine, because I answered every single thing you just asked in the last post.

A) Of course not, because there is no such thing as objective morality, and the relative quality of a societal value system is by its very nature linked to the society.  If there were, morality would be the same 1000 years ago as it is now, and that's emphatically untrue.  The societal value system of the modern US is the best societal value system of the modern US.
B) See above.
C) I actually answered this one word for ****ing word.  Emphasis added so you don't miss it again.

You may noticed that absolutely nowhere have I ever said that mine was better or worse than anyone else's.  This is an incredibly important concept to grasp: I am no more important to any other arbitrary person as that person is important to me.  My morality isn't superior, but it is mine.  This is arguably why society is so important!  It is an amalgamation of the views and values of everyone that it includes.

D) See above.

To answer the Godwin accusation, let me point out that when asked what grounds we had to condemn the holocaust, The_E's answer was a very emphatic "Nothing". I find this horrifying.

So according to you, no morality, no values system, no code of conduct, is better than any other? Because that's why I ask clarifying questions even after you say things like that: such a belief precludes the ability to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong, even though you've done so a lot over the past two threads.

[Scotty]

So according to you, no morality, no values system, no code of conduct, is better than any other?

Intrinsically, which is what you're actually asking?  No; No morality, values system, or code of conduct is better than any other.

Subjectively, which is what I've been saying the entire goddamn time?  Yes.  I don't need an objective justification for disapproving of an arbitrary morality/values system/code of conduct/etc that I happen to disagree with!  What matters to me, and what matters to society, is that I (and collectively we) disapprove of a given competing system for whatever reason we do.  An objective system for determining moral advantage is unnecessary (and I frankly think it would be pretty horrifying).

EDIT: Meaning comes from people, not the reverse.  Our values as a society are the summation of the values of the individuals that compose it.  They are not an objective standard.  Again, if an objective standard did exist, it would have existed in the past!  Clearly it did not.

[Aesaar]

The fact that every human person has intrinsic value is as self-evident as 2+2=4.

No it isn't.  I don't believe every human life has intrinsic value.

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

That we believe it's better.  That's it.  That's the only thing required.  And in 300 years they'll think theirs is better and that we were wrong about some things.  Morality is always subjective.

[GhylTarvoke]

I don't believe every human life has intrinsic value.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[NGTM-1R]

If there is no actual morality

This is a stunning logical leap.

Why is "morality is relative" the same as "morality does not exist"? Simply because a position is relative does not make valid, after all.

[InsaneBaron]

EDIT: you still haven't answered the question. What makes our consensus better than theirs?

That we believe it's better.  That's it.  That's the only thing required.  And in 300 years they'll think theirs is better and that we were wrong about some things.  Morality is always subjective.

So in other words, we're not actually any better than the Nazis, or Aztecs, or ISIS, we just think we are? No. Just no. Please, just think about this for a bit.

[FrikgFeek]

You're misinterpreting. In our morality we are better than the Nazis and Aztecs because we believe that we are. That's how morality works.