Damn - please feel free to continue commenting, I certainly value your contributions.

I will do my best to at least make clear my position.

Haven't they given the asshat avatar or a ban already for saying in the regular forums they were only going to respond to one person?

I don't see much point in going any further into a 'debate' on this, or ultimately empty philosophical games about it.

My last post on the subject pretty much wrapped it up for me.

The OP has already conceded that in the practical sense, we have to be pragmatic about moral decosions. The rest is merely philosophy, and I long ago lost interest in that.

What do you mean where does it come from? It just is. It's tautology violation is violation. What else could it be?

And if you are alluding to the ingenious pointing out of the obvious which is attributed to the middle eastern holy man in a popular book, that is, at best, an historical record of someone saying something very rational, it's not the source of anything but a concise articulation to which one can refer.

So what if it did? the means of formulating a basis doesn't bear that heavily on it's utility. This question eludes the point.

No, it would not be, this is a straw man. The utilitarian basis of moral judgement, if you recall, was not to do to another what you wouldn't have them do to you.  If a society is going to execute the boy, unless they all feel comfortable to line up behind him at the gallows, this basis does not moralise it for them, it falls to someone to act immorally in order to carry out an execution.

According to our social contract and basic human rights, you violated her rights and you commited a crime which is punishble by death in some societies, or life imprisonment. You also might want to consult your conscience, because if it's working properly you would be feeling very guilty which should tell you that you also think what you did was wrong.

I'm atheist Chuck; I know these things are wrong. Are you trying to say people who don't worship a "god" or have a belief in the supernatural cannot act appropriately in society? We know what is right and wrong according to what we learn and see growing up. "God" or any sort of religious scripture have no implication what so ever. WE create laws and moral standards because human beings require stability for longevity and survival. It's beneficial for us to have them in a complex social structure like the one we have. If we didn't have laws, standards or morals, then we would have anarchy...and I think we can both agree that would not be a nice scenario.

Besides, maybe you should read a little bit of the OT...there are plenty of hungry homicidal maniacs there ordered to rape, enslave and murder, by "god" himself. What do you say about that Chuck?

The alternative to using social instincts and reason is your arbitrary moral assertions of ignorant superstition. Ignorant superstition is not a source of morality. So called religious morality is not a morality at all because you can not base morality on lies.

Hitler and the Nazis believed in your imaginary God and his imaginary morality. Hitler was just trying to implement your God's plan for the Jews according to the writings of Martin Luther. Hitler was following your objective morality when he murdered the Jews. It was not Hitler's fault that your God is an evil bastard and your so called objective morality is the ravings of deluded psychotics.

Dave Hume showed that there is no such thing as a universal absolute truth. Fortunately, we never need any universal absolute truth, all we need is approximates that are sufficient for making decisions. We know that some things are almost certainly true. E.g. it  is almost certainly true that there is no God. It is almost certainly true that the bible is fiction. It is almost certainly true that Jesus never existed. It is almost certainly true that Christianity has continuously run the largest forgery mill in the world since it was invented in the 4th century.

We also know that some things are likely or unlikely. E.g. it is likely that there was no Christian religion before the 4th century. It is unlikely that the Gospels were written before the end of the 3rd century

And he could also outcomsume Schopenhauer and Hegel!

"I was programmed by evolution to do x" does not imply "x is good".

This post, though touching, does not establish any objective, rational basis for an atheistic ethic.

He "prefers" the negative version of the Golden Rule. Catch that? "Prefers" it. You can see that although the atheist appeals to high-sounding ideas, though he cites rights and utility and the golden rule, he is really running on emotionalism. All of them without exception are subjectivists.

This one combines a bit of determinism with the subjectivism, I see. That excludes his moral code for two reasons: in the absence of choice, nothing is good or bad, and, of course, he does not successfully cross the is-ought gap.

Maybe this has been dealt with before, but first I find your relishing of the  gruesome detail a bit of a worry.  What does that say about you?   I also find your superior tone irritating ...as though you are leading us less enlightened atheists by the hand in guidance.   

As social animals we have evolved to form social units for survival and our instincts are directed towards this end.  We are predisposed by evolution and natural selection to take care of our children, loved ones and tribe (or country).  To this end we draw up rules for the protection of individuals and the tribe as a whole because it is in our own self-interest to maintain a harmonious, prosperous social unit.  As individuals we cannot survive alone.  No man is an island.  These rules, which in time take on the force of law, are inculcated into the next generation and this is what we call morality.  It is relative to the needs of the tribe and can be changed as the needs of the tribe change or society becomes more enlightened.  Thus, in time, we do away with more primitive morality like slavery or child labor subjugation of women, discrimination against race, homosexuality and capital punishment.  The problem with absolute, bible based laws is that, being from a god, they can't be changed...just brushed under the carpet.  It must be so embarrassing being religious and stuck with all that outmoded baggage.     

Oh Hello Presupp, how have you been? Beguilingly immodest as always I see.

They're not intended to be, "y would object to x" ... well, more precisely, "virtually every conceivable y would object to x" provides a basis for defining "wrong" -- this is what the OP asked for.

Now you've moved the goal posts to "is-ought" and the OP might have IMPLIED that, sure, but what it asked for more precisely was a basis upon which certain acts could be deemed wrong. That was provided.

I haven't read all of Chuck's posts in this thread so I don't know if he has forwarded the premise that you speak of, which would be: "One should not do that which is wrong" but I know that this premise is not relevant to the question in the OP. The OP asks the atheists to establish a singular basis for adjudicating wrong. Where anyone has expanded on utility for that basis they have taken it on themselves; it wasn't asked.

Presup,

First off review what was really in the OP.

He asked for a basis and that was it. He did not ask for us to prove the basis only to provide one.

Actually since I find myself in a civilized world it is unnecessary for  me to completely construct the basics that derive rights. If I was in a place where absolutely no rules have been developed then a basis would need to be constructed. As is this is not the case  I critiqued Chucky's pervasion accordingly. I was not constructing any theory of the good but espousing that which I was indoctrinated as a member of the society to which I belong. By all means you are welcome to construct your own rules from scratch if you can find a place where no basis has occured.

Learning from previous generations through accumulated knowledge and the written word is what sets humans apart from other creatures on this planet. I also didn't have to invent fire or the wheel out of thin air either. As societies develop knowledge as well as  rules are modified to reflect the group's consensus and greater understanding. That all of us may not agree with them may help to alter that which a society values. 

As societies evolved enough people seemed to object to having their children burned as offerings to the gods. Human sacrifice is not currently accepted as being in society's best interests at least where I reside. As said by another poster, Hasan when these rules are cut in stone by a god they aren't easily changed. Thus stoning for disrespecting your parents or infidelity is largely not practiced. Of course being raped and reporting it in a Muslim country usually will get the victim murdered to preserve the honor of the family.

The question is as follows:

What is the basis for the truth of the statement "X ought not to do Y"?

Your answer is as follows:

"X ought not to do Y" is true because X is offended whenever Y is done.

Looking at your answer, you are doing one of three things:

(1)  You are making a universal claim about the emotions of every human being in existence.  Moreover, you are making an empirical claim.  This means that in order for you to actually know that every human being reacts a certain way to certain stimuli, you would have actually had to observe every single one of them that has ever existed. 

OR

(2) You are making a universal hypothesis about the emotions of every human being in existence based on the behavior of some human beings that you have observed and have decided from the outset that any human beings who do not exhibit these behavioral characteristics are not mentally stable, thereby making it impossible for you to be wrong from that standpoint. 

OR

(3) You are saying that under the assumption that many humans react differently to certain stimuli, everybody has their own morality and moral claims are true for them individually.  Therefore, moral statements can be true for one person but false for another. 

Okay, so I know that you have not observed every single human being in existence.  So you clearly cannot be endorsing (1).  (2) commits the fallacy of inferring a universal from a particular and employs a technique known as the ad hoc rescue.  But since you've stated that morality is relative, I will assume that you are endorsing (3).

Do you honestly see no problem with that position?

You are absolutely correct. 3 is what I'm arguing.

"Endorsing", however, implies that I want it that way. I don't have an opinion on that. It's like wanting the Earth to be banana-shaped. What's the point in that?

And do I see a problem in that?

I see a problem with people who find it moral to kill others. Some do just that. Some will kill in war and find it moral. Some will execute prisoners and find it moral. Yes, I see a problem with that.

But I don't deny the fact that some find it moral. I only find it reprihensible. It's not gonna be untrue that some people find some things moral that I don't, simply because I find it reprihensible.

I repeat. people rape and murder and steal and manipulate and coerce all the time. If morals are absolute, how do you explain that?

I think my moral justifications are good, otherwise I would have different morals (duh...)

Because I think they are good, it is my belief (and experience) that when I engage in discussion with people about what they ought to do, they eventually agree with me, because my justifications are good. I'm not saying it's easy, but that's how it works.

If and when I agree with them, because their justifications are good, I incorporate these justifications into my own moral framework, and my morals change accordingly. This has happened only very rarely, and has shifted my moral opinions only very slightly, but it does happen. That, and the reason that I have convinced others of my moral justifications in the past, is why I know it possible to change people's mind.

Would I like it, if everyone was just imbued with an innate sense of absolute morals, and no argument about what ought to be done ever needed to take place ever?

I honestly can't say... That's like saying, would I like it if black was white, and up was down... How can I judge how I would feel if reality wasn't reality?

Moral are relative. This is not a statement of my wishes, nor my fears. It is a statement of fact. You know it's true, because you know that some people stone rapevictims and sacrifice their children to their Gods, because they think it is the moral thing to do.

Unless you have never ever witnessed an, in your opinion, immoral act, done by someone who was clearly finding it moral themselves, then you know that morals are relative. There's no need for me to reiterate that simple and obvious fact any further. You allready know it's true.

And that's all well and good, but you'll have to present me with an moral statement in which its absolute truth is contained within itself. Can you do that? Saying: "The Truth Is Out There" is perhaps profound, but it's also very very banal,  (a contradiction?) and certainly, it doesn't really move the discussion along, now does it?

Agreed. That's what I was saying. But there is one important question to the question above, lest the whole statement becomes pointless.

That question is: whose moral principles are they violating? The only thing we know is that it is not their own, because otherwise, they would believe it was wrong. So whose is it then? Yours? Mine? God's?

None of those will do, for me or you. You want it to be universal moral principles, but then you are still back to giving me a moral statement with it's own truth self-contained.

Correct: belief in the truth amount to knowledge. Belief in an un-truth is merely a false belief.

My argument is that there is no such thing as moral truth. Now it's your turn to show me how I'm wrong.

If you simply say: "well if there are no moral truths then I can just go out and rape a little girl" then we have gotten nowhere. It's just a statement of fact.

It is a statement of fact that you can go out and rape a little girl. We both know this because rape happens. Yes you CAN go out and do it, just like you CAN intervene if you see someone else doing it.

You can't derive an ought from an is.

So your argument has to be something else. I need not defend my observation that there are no moral truths any futher.

It is now your turn to bring a counter argument by showing me a moral truth: by your own definition, a moral statement which has it's own truth self-contained within it.

So let's hear it, and perhaps I'll revise my opinion. Otherwise how will you argue that I am not right in saying there are no moral truths?

Remember that I said that it is through discussion and argument that I revise my opinions about the universe, so please trust me when I say that I am open to sound argumentation.

But since you have yet to present me with an example of an absolute morality, I have yet to revise my opinion.

Surely you don't find that unreasonable?

Okay folks, critical thinking time. Here are the premises:

P1. The Bible lists a lot of punishable offenses that strike Bob as arbitrary. (Not listing them, or explaining why they strike him so.)

P2. The Bible has no appeal system, or early release for good behavior. (Presumably, referring to Hell.)

P3. The Biblical moral code is a list of offences rather than a set of guidelines, and so does not cover all situations.

And here is the conclusion:

C. Therefore, the Bible is not a good source of morality.

Which premise implies that conclusion? The answer is: none of them. You need some sort of if-then statement to draw that conclusion, and he hasn't provided it. It appears that P1-3 make him very sad, but that does not obviously make them evil, or invalidate the Bible as a source of morality. He cannot rationally conclude that the Bible is a poor source of morality without first giving a rational account of the good. And because he can't cross the is-ought gap, he can't do that.

On top of that, his P3 is actually not correct. Read through some of the books of Old Testament law, and you will see that principles actually are given, and many of the laws therein clearly derive from those principles. In Exodus, for example, the more detailed laws against and punishments for murder follow fairly clearly from "thou shalt not murder". I would be the first to admit that the connections are not always so clear, but saying that the whole Biblical code does not employ principles, or that principles are unimportant to it, is nonsense.

"Thou shalt not murder" is not a principle. As stated, it is actually a tautology, since "murder" already incorporates the qualification of a wrong action. "Kill" would be closer to expressing a principle, but that then would conflict with much of what is actually commanded by God in the OT.

I am actually surprised you picked that.

Isn't there some expression of the "Golden Rule" in there somewhere? That is arguably a principle.

Regarding the main point:

A list without a accompanying adequate justification beyond being a commandment of God is arbitrary.

In any case, P1 is subsumed in P3 which includes a reason why it is a problem.

P2 points out an inadequacy, which would pretty much be universally regarded as a failing in a secular legal system.

A list of inadequacies justifies labelling something as not good.

I am not trying to construct a formal logical argument. Morality is ultimately heavily, but not purely, a function of personal prefernces in a society, so this less formal argument is entirely appropriate, in my world-view.

You obviously disagree, but that is because you come with a different set of Presuppositions, of course. There is no way you can 'prove' your presupposition about morality are more valid that mine, without referring back to your presuppositions themselves, so you are Godelled.

The basis of human dignity.

Human beings are rational creatures who assign values to actions and objects in the world. As a human being, you can assign values to actions and objects in the world, but there is no arbitrary reason why your right to do this precedes another's right to do this. From this we derive human dignity, that, as rational beings, we should respect other rational beings.

To use a being with dignity as a tool is a grave moral transgression, for you have not acknowledged their dignity, and took it away for your own selfish pleasure.

In this case, you have destroyed the dignity (and the life) of the little girl for your own pleasure, and have thus commited a terrible moral crime.

I am not going to speak for anyone else, but I for one am a moral relativists. Can you tell me what's wrong with that? Or better yet, can you offer an argument for moral objectivism? One that does not rely on God mind you.

This question has an amazingly simple answer, yet the problem with any answer that anyone can possibly give as to the question of how can we determine "wrong" is that they are all absolutely relative. As humans we learned early in our evolutionary progress that being kind to eachother and cooperating with eachother was the best way to ensure the maximum level of comfort for ourselves and our offspring. As with all animals, we are motivated by basic instincts, we need food, water, and shelter. Using this simple truth about our species we can then realize that our morality is simply devised from our own needs, and the needs of our offsprings and/or loved ones. Causing any harm to another often impedes us from obtaining what we need for our survival. As for actually stating that the actions you would take in your kidnap/rape scenario and giving them the label of wrong is absolutely impossible. If a person comes along and believes that little girls love to be kidnapped and then raped then to them it won't be wrong it will actually be very right to them. The best (and of course most cliche) example of this is Hitler. He caused the greatest conflict our world has ever seen and murdered millions in cold blood. He believed he was right, and truly on what basis can we use to call him wrong? He killed millions, sure, he also brought Germany out of a crippling depression and, in all actuality, saved many lives. If you were a radical muslim you believe that flying planes into skyscrapers killing thousands actually gets you immediately into the promised land. I will give you my simple answer for my morality, compassion for the human race. I do not wish pain on anyone. WHY do I think this? What exactly brings me to that conclussion? I personally dislike pain, and I assume no one else does either. Also kind acts to others bring joy back to me. When you buy someone a gift and they smile radiantly do you not get a warm fuzzy feeling? Why is that considered right? We have no true reasons for this. Humans as a society have gathered a basic moral code from the morals of individuals. To me it is extremely obvious that atheists are indeed moral individuals as we are roughly 10% of the American population and yet we are only .2% of the population that is incarcerated in this country. However, Christians make up 75% of the country, and yet, even with their supposedly higher moral code sent from god they are represented with a full 75% of the jail population. Before you ask us where we garner our morals from, you should first examine where the morals of religion come from as well. Christians morals come from the bible of course, (which does have some great moral guidance!) but a lot of the things sanctioned in the bible are no longer allowed in society. Slavery is no longer allowed, yet it is sanctioned in the bible. We cannot sell our daughters into sexual servitude as is allowed in the bible. Millions of people work on the Sabbath even though the bible states not to. Morality cannot be pinned down and a blanket reason given as the cause of our morals. Right and wrong are not black and white but are full of shades of grey. The bible says Thou Shall Not Kill, but what if you could kill one evil man to save a thousand innocent lives, do you believe that it would be moral to do so? Or are you going to allow the death of a thousand to be allowed by not taking one life. It's as if you sanctioned the death of the thousand yourself.

The question of this topic is also extremely easy to turn around. What basis do Christians use to say that it would be wrong? God says it's wrong? Well why do you care? Oh ... because he will punish you with hellfire and damnation. Again, this is an obvious case of the instinct for self preservation and avoidance of pain that motivates morality. Why do Christians wish to convert others? They wish to save them from hell ... again they wish their fellow beings not to suffer. Quite obviously since Christians and Atheists both share the belief of sparing others from pain, and yet one group believes in god and the other doesn't. How can you explain both groups obtaining the same morals for the same reasons? Humans as social creatures have learned to feel empathy and compassion towards one another and there is no reason to question such morality as it is obvious that it exists from the actions of so many in our society.

On the surface, the fact that it is illegal.

I could of course cite a person's innate right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Or maybe the fact that if people kept doing this, we'd run out of little girls and then the human race would die out.

Really, much of it comes down to the average human's emotional response.  Basically the basis that I use to tell you this is immoral is the same basis that Christians use to tell me that anything is immoral.  The bible is so full of contradictory "moral lessons" that any reader must use some non-religious basis to pick out the good lessons from the bad.  Wherever anyone's morals come from, it's not religion.