What could make morality objective?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ginkgo wrote:

Are you disagreeing with Kant's claim that moral behaviour can be universalized, or are you saying that the categorical imperative question begs?

I'm saying that morality must be subjective,
No way!

Tell me which of these things would you want done to you/yours?
Kill you?
Kill your wife or son/daughter?
Rape you?
Rape your wife or son/daughter?
Steal from you?
Steal from your wife or son/daughter?
Punch you in any of your faces?
Take credit for something any of you four have done?
Set your home on fire?
Etc, etc, etc.
How about all the rest of you out there?
NO?

Then it would surely seem that everything is not subjective, and quite universal.
Sure you may want to be strangled as you orgasm, where I don't, but then there are in fact many psychoses and neuroses running around the population.

There are in fact many fundamental morals that are universal.

And if you live by a golden rule that addresses all of the concerns of philosophers, you'll be quite capable of properly addressing all those people that appear to be psychologically broken. The proper golden rule plugs the holes in the universal morality dike.


because a moral assertion expresses a value-judgement rather than making a factual claim. So talk of universalisation or categorical imperatives, like talk of prescriptive truths, misses the point that the is-ought barrier is insuperable.

If you can cite a moral categorical imperative, or a prescriptive truth, that is not a value-judgement, please do so. Then I'll have to re-think my whole argument.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

In any philosophical debate one can always sense those that really don't have a chance at truth, or even know what knowledge is, as the foundation of their 'believed' strength is based upon unprovable assumptions. Why are we even compelled to argue with them, because as liars/fools, they shall always invent more lies/subterfuge when boxed in. So what's the point? Knowing this while attempting to keep them on the run hoping for their exhaustion?

I like to think that rational discussion can bring about changes in ways of thinking, if only slowly and indirectly. And the spectators may benefit, even if the participants don't.

I concur!
Actually that was aimed at a particular person. Sorry that you got tangled up in it.

[Immanuel Can]

consensus among philosophers is that the God hypothesis in relation to morality fails.

You might really be surprised about that.

[Immanuel Can]

Your typical cowardly reply, as always!

As I said, that really is no kind of answer. But you know that. You haven't got one. If you did, you'd have given it. It would have been the best way to win your case.

Atheists always complain they don't like the Theistic answers, but then have nothing but dust to offer in their place.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you want to be used as a means fundamentally by anyone?

"Want"? "Want"?

"Want" has nothing to do with it. What we want, and what we're going to get are two very different things, if we have no grounds for morality.

I don't think you would, so is any other human who is conscious of this normal expectation. [except perverts].
Thus the Golden Rules applies.

You mean, "Because you want not to be used as a means, therefore you owe it to do to your neighbour what you would want done to you?" Is that really the logic you are advocating? Because that's what you just said, taken literally. And pretty obviously, it's not logical.

There's nothing about the fact that I don't like being used that makes it obligatory for me to be kind to my neighbour. If I'm strong and he's weak, and it suits me to do anything at all to him, who is there to say I cannot?

So the GR needs grounding. You can't just take it for granted. And it's certainly not grounded in my "wants," or self-evident from my dislike of being "used."

I have stated before, the GR needs grounding.

Wanting as different from we get is off topic in this case.

I asked, do you [personally] want to be used as a mean by others?
Since you do not get the point and deflected, here is what the point is;
Do you want to be say, a prostitute for a pimp?
Do you want to be a suicide bomber for a a group of evil prone Muslims?

Your answer to the above?

Naturally there will be perverts who will answer yes to the above question but the majority will likely to answer no.

The question is why should the very obvious maxim 'Humans should Not to be used as a mean but is an end to itself' be a universal. That in principle I agree should be supported by some grounding. But I am not going int the details.

As I had stated I do not want to go into the details.

I know why. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

Note I agree in Principle [a hypothesis at present] we need grounding for any universal maxim.

Why? Why are Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley and Rand all wrong? How do we ground this claim that all human beings are owed "dignity," whatever that is?

Kant went into great depth on this.

He did not. He never grounded that version of the CI in anything.

Have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment?

Kant did ground his CI on a deistic [btw not theistic] God and his extensive arguments are sufficient for the purpose. I am using other fields of knowledge to add reinforcement to Kant's model.

You can't "insult" a thing that hasn't been established by being grounded. And in point of fact, if Darwin et al. are correct, then I maximize my dignity -- to borrow Nietzsche's words, I act like one of the "übermensch" -- when I disregard the moral whining of the weak and act on my "will to power," which is the real source of my "dignity," and that of the human race in general, according to him.

Why are these guys wrong?

It goes something like this, all humans has basic and generic qualities, i.e. basic human nature.
Thus if you do not the basic respect for human nature which is the same for every human, then you are insulting yourself.

No, you're not. You're insulting them.

But even if you were "insulting yourself," by some sort of vague implication, who says that's wrong to do? It's not obvious why you couldn't.

Equality isn't a self-evident thing either. What's evident is differences. And that's why things like discrimination are such hot topics today -- because everybody can see differences, not equality, but a whole bunch of us want equality anyway. So we have to argue for it, because it's not at all obvious.

In way, if you think basic human nature is shit [or whatever negative or derogatory], then you are accepting you are shit. No normal person would think would accept that.

No. All you're saying is that you think you're better than they are. And lots of people think such things.

This is why the concept of 'dehumanizing' others is such a serious moral issue that can end up with catastrophic consequences.

It can. But rarely do those consequences fall on everyone equally. Usually, there are winners and losers in that game, which is why the "winners" like it and the "losers" don't. But Darwin, Rand, Nietzsche et al. think that's just a fact of nature. There are winners and losers in the game of "survival of the fittest" too -- and in their view, there's nothing more natural than that.

If you do not recognize your own basic human dignity, then you are accepting yourself and others as equivalent animal, thus human beasts.
This is how humans are driven to commit terrible evils from minor to the most extreme of genocides.
Why should it be a universal maxim, that would require proper grounding abstracted from empirical evidences so that it is objective.

You cannot deny both theists and non-theists contribute to charity in varying circumstances.

But to wildly different degrees and quantities. Having lived in the so-called "Developing World," (which is still suffering, more than "developing," I can tell you), I can also tell you that if we relied on Atheist charitable work for foreign aid, NGOs, medical initiatives, water projects, food programs or educational and business development, there would be none in a very short time. Almost all the charitable work is done by religions organizations or religious individuals. Atheists, with a few laudable exceptions, are generally not massive givers.

And why should they be? After all, in their view it's survival of the fittest. So charity is quite optional. Some do it -- and some are even very generous -- but the vast majority simply do not, and think themselves none the worse for not doing it.

The relevant point here is both theists and non-theists do contribute to charity.

You admit to being obviously bias as confining your data to the 'developing world'. Surely you could be more intellect responsible to do some intellectual exploration.
There is one group of non-theists, i.e. Buddhists who are very active into charity in the East.

Even then what you have missed out in the West is that non-theists are only about 1-10% of the population in the West. That is why you hear mostly of religious doing charity work. Again your thinking competence is frail. This is not ad hominen but relevant to whatever views you contribute in this forum.

Note this counter,

https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/p ... er20111125
Atheist Charities Are More Generous than Religious Charities ...

Charitable behavior gets big perks in the afterlife, according to Christian and Islamic theology. Philanthropy, in these creeds, is a highly profitable long-term investment, a down payment on ecstatic immortality. Quite the bargain!

But atheists? No heaven awaits them. No pearly gates, eager virgins, harping angels, fluffy clouds, or succulent oasis. No reward whatsoever. Atheists have no faith, no expectation of benefit from a deity. So, atheists are probably selfish, right? Pitiless, parsimonious. Totally stingy misers, not passing a penny off to the poor…correct?

WRONG! Atheists, non-believers, secular humanists, skeptics—the whole gamut of the godless have emerged in recent years as inarguably the most generous benefactors on the globe. That’s right. Hordes of heretics are the world’s biggest damned philanthropists. Both individually and in groups, heathen infidels are topping the fundraising charts.

The above mentioned Bill Gates whom I believe is a non-theists whilst his wife in involved with the Catholics.

A Big List of Atheist Charities
http://thaumaturgical.com/a-big-list-of ... charities/#

One point is theists contribute to Charity in a very conditional circumstances, i.e. under a degree of compulsion, peer pressure and a threat of hell and to gain merit to go the heaven with eternal life.

[Dubious]

Your typical cowardly reply, as always!

As I said, that really is no kind of answer. But you know that. You haven't got one. If you did, you'd have given it. It would have been the best way to win your case.

Atheists always complain they don't like the Theistic answers, but then have nothing but dust to offer in their place.

Again, total trash and lies. Are these the teachings of your moral master? Secular morality was explained to you hundreds of times. Telling it a hundred more times to the tenth power makes zero difference to a brain dead fundamentalist. Ironically, there are church dignitaries who already figured that one out as well! Even if you don't believe any posters there's plenty of essays and books on the subject even by theologians. But the ONLY thing you ever managed was to inflate your ego by claiming a higher morality guided by your holy book always repeating the same stupid insane arguments as if there were no comprehension of history or the ability of human nature to keep revising, subtracting and adding to prior knowledge.

Not once have you explained what makes your morality superior beyond the fact that it's contained in the bible as commands to be obeyed. That's it, nothing more. How bloody brilliant is that! But sadly for you this kind of shit doesn't cut it 2000 years later. Uwot, a few posts back, gave you some very succinct definitions as to the kind of behavior which defines the moral impulse but not a word from you debating its properties. Like a true coward you consistently bypass or distort arguments which surpass your ability to negate. There's hardly a post of yours which doesn't prove precisely that.

[uwot]

Atheists always complain they don't like the Theistic answers, but then have nothing but dust to offer in their place.

Dust to dust, Mr Can.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims.

Immanuel Can, you constantly confuse morality with theology.

What morality ideally and among decent people actually is, is ordinary human kindness as is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Theology, yours and mine, and everyone elses' is no more than a rationalisation of the person's own attitude to that ideal morality.

[Ginkgo]

consensus among philosophers is that the God hypothesis in relation to morality fails.

You might really be surprised about that.

I doubt it. There is no hypothesis in relation to God and/or morality that's not subject to criticism.

[Ginkgo]

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place...

Describe it. Who creates it, how do we know it's "right," and why are we morally obligated to it?

Uwot provided the answer to your questions, but for some reason you ignore his posts.

[Immanuel Can]

Wanting as different from we get is off topic in this case.

I asked, do you [personally] want to be used as a mean by others?

Exactly. It was you who brought in "want," as if it mattered. It doesn't. I wasn't "deflecting" it -- there was no point worthy of deflection there. It was simply irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Since you do not get the point and deflected, here is what the point is;
Do you want to be say, a prostitute for a pimp?
Do you want to be a suicide bomber for a a group of evil prone Muslims?

I don't. But some people do. And you have no basis for saying they're wrong, if they want it.

Naturally there will be perverts who will answer yes to the above question but the majority will likely to answer no.

You've gratuitously defined them as "perverts." But that doesn't get you off the duty of showing that their wants are really "perverted." You've defined "normal," by implication, simply as "whatever VA (and her kind) likes." But there's no reason they should think that definition should hold for people who feel differently.

In fact, it still begs the point that "wants" are utterly irrelevant to morality. If my neighbour is a pedophile, I have no concern for his "wants" except the prevention of them. "Wants" are not moral counters of any kind.

Kant went into great depth on this.

He did not. He never grounded that version of the CI in anything.

Have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment?
I believe so. But if there's something I've missed, then page and reference, please. I'd be happy to see it.

The relevant point here is both theists and non-theists do contribute to charity.

No. The relevant point is that charity wouldn't get done in any substantial way at all if it relied on the Atheists.

Buddhists who are very active into charity in the East.

Check the UN statistics again.

But atheists? No heaven awaits them. No pearly gates, eager virgins, harping angels, fluffy clouds, or succulent oasis.

Did you get your idea of the afterlife from Disney?

And you're quite right. No Heaven awaits Atheists. I could not agree more. But I doubt that's a selling point.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, you constantly confuse morality with theology.

Not a bit.

But that does not mean that morality can get along without grounding.

What morality ideally and among decent people actually is, is ordinary human kindness as is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount.

Interestingly, you're appealing to a theological articulation. But I would be very interested in what parts of the Sermon on the Mount you like most, from a moral perspective. I suspect that if you read it again, you may have reservations. It does not sanction any kind of Atheistic or natural moralism, but rather depends on things you claim not to believe in, like "The Kingdom of God."

[Immanuel Can]

Uwot provided the answer to your questions, but for some reason you ignore his posts.

uwot's determined to commit a kind of "suicide by cop" by using conversation with me as an occasion to blaspheme and condemn himself.

Now uwot doesn't believe that will actually happen -- but I do. And since I do, I cannot morally be party to such a disastrous scheme as that, if I have any care for his soul at all. So for his own good, and as a Christian, I now have to refuse to engage him, lest he should harm himself further.

That's lamentable, because I'm pretty sure he would be capable of civil conversation if he tried, and he may have relevant points. However, it would be wrong of me to risk becoming the occasion of his further self-condemnation.

Personally, I still hope some iota of self-preserving instinct awakens in him, and he changes his tune. I have no desire to see what he is precipitating happen to him. But that will also have to be his choice.

[Dubious]

Uwot provided the answer to your questions, but for some reason you ignore his posts.

uwot's determined to commit a kind of "suicide by cop" by using conversation with me as an occasion to blaspheme and condemn himself.

Now uwot doesn't believe that will actually happen -- but I do. And since I do, I cannot morally be party to such a disastrous scheme as that, if I have any care for his soul at all. So for his own good, and as a Christian, I now have to refuse to engage him, lest he should harm himself further.

That's lamentable, because I'm pretty sure he would be capable of civil conversation if he tried, and he may have relevant points. However, it would be wrong of me to risk becoming the occasion of his further self-condemnation.

Personally, I still hope some iota of self-preserving instinct awakens in him, and he changes his tune. I have no desire to see what he is precipitating happen to him. But that will also have to be his choice.

Your hypocrisy is so outstanding it could serve as a template for the lowest limits a theist can descend to. These perverse lies couldn't have been inspired by Jesus who constantly railed against it and those like you in each one of the gospels.

It would be in your favor if the story weren't true because if there is a god who can see "inside" each person, It's only going to send you where you deserve to be which is in the opposite direction of where you expect to go.

But not to fear! Nature is merciful in one respect. Your eventual "Not to be, will be as all that came before", meaning every creature that ever lived buried in the common grave of timeless oblivion. It's the ultimate anodyne and a million times preferable to being in the company of any god who could manufacture such loathsome hypocrites as Thou!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wanting as different from we get is off topic in this case.

I asked, do you [personally] want to be used as a mean by others?

Exactly. It was you who brought in "want," as if it mattered. It doesn't. I wasn't "deflecting" it -- there was no point worthy of deflection there. It was simply irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Since you do not get the point and deflected, here is what the point is;
Do you want to be say, a prostitute for a pimp?
Do you want to be a suicide bomber for a a group of evil prone Muslims?

I don't. But some people do. And you have no basis for saying they're wrong, if they want it.

Naturally there will be perverts who will answer yes to the above question but the majority will likely to answer no.

You've gratuitously defined them as "perverts." But that doesn't get you off the duty of showing that their wants are really "perverted." You've defined "normal," by implication, simply as "whatever VA (and her kind) likes." But there's no reason they should think that definition should hold for people who feel differently.

In fact, it still begs the point that "wants" are utterly irrelevant to morality. If my neighbour is a pedophile, I have no concern for his "wants" except the prevention of them. "Wants" are not moral counters of any kind.

My basis of moral is based on an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with justified grounded moral laws. This is based on the theories of Kant supplement with knowledge from other fields of knowledge.
The full framework is not implemented in practice but there are implied features that indicate the actual progress of this framework. [..I have discussed this].

In the meantime the basis I borrowed which is more or less parallel to that effective Framework of Morality is based on existing laws in a majority of countries e.g.
prostitution and pimping is generally illegal in most countries, suicide bombers are also illegal in most countries. There is a long lists of illegal activities that is common within all countries in the world, e.g. premeditated killing, rapes, torture, etc.

Now, what is the basis of your morality?
God? that illusory God who condoned slavery and suicide bombers?

Kant went into great depth on this.

He did not. He never grounded that version of the CI in anything.

Have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment?
I believe so. But if there's something I've missed, then page and reference, please. I'd be happy to see it.

Kant's Category Imperative with his justification are the fundamental grounds for his moral system. Note, it is 90% sufficient but not 95%.
Read Kant's Critique of Practical Reason and supporting points from his Critique of Pure Reason.
After you have read it, tell me why Kant's postulation of the CI as grounds is not sufficient or inefficient at least in theory at present?

The relevant point here is both theists and non-theists do contribute to charity.

No. The relevant point is that charity wouldn't get done in any substantial way at all if it relied on the Atheists.

Note I provided links which argued otherwise and non-theists are big contributors to charity and more so without any hidden conditions to please a God.

Buddhists who are very active into charity in the East.

Check the UN statistics again.

The point is Buddhists do contribute to Charity in relation to their global number and %.

But atheists? No heaven awaits them. No pearly gates, eager virgins, harping angels, fluffy clouds, or succulent oasis.

Did you get your idea of the afterlife from Disney?

That was not my point. I think you quoted from the articles I linked.

And you're quite right. No Heaven awaits Atheists. I could not agree more. But I doubt that's a selling point.

That is critical to drive the point, theists are subliminally coerced to contribute to charity and not that they volunteer unconditionally.