What could make morality objective?

[uwot]

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.

If I understand your god correctly, then it can see right inside my head. Therefore, anything that actually comes out of it is going to make no difference.

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.

So as a Christian that cares for my soul the best you can do is let it burn in hell, rather than show me the light.

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.

Crikey, Mr Can, how bad does hell get? Burning hot gouges with extra lemon juice?

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.

Yup, I have no desire for you to see what I am precipitating happen to me either. Save me, Mr Can!
The point is, Mr Can, if your arguments were any good they would work.

[Belinda]

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."

There is no totally objective "grounding", except for those who believe that God has revealed his intentions and plan to us.
There is possibly one candidate, a very old ethic dating from OT times which forbids idolatry. Golden calves are the least of it; and it's wrong to idolise any human institution, ideology, or individual's idea. Recent instances of idolatry has been when the Roman Catholic Church favoured itself before the spirit of loving kindness, and many of ts servants became untruthful and cruel.

Bibliolatry is another example of idolatry.

Again, it's the spirit of loving kindness which matters in the Sermon of the Mount and which overrides local phrases from first century Judaism, such as "Kingdom of God".

[Immanuel Can]

...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!

Well, no hard feelings. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. As is uwot. He has every right to live and die on the terms he prefers. But I would wish better for him than he seeks for himself, but that will remain up to him.

But what is this red rage against "hypocrisy"? Since nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world, you can't mean much. You must mean, "I just don't like you," but you cannot possibly mean, "What you are is (somehow) bad." That is not an expression that rationalizes with anything in your worldview suppositions. Its content has no objective correlates, according to you. There is no objective "bad." So I can't be "bad," in any real sense, in your worldview.

Indeed, you would need to adopt my worldview, even to make that utterance make any sense.

So for purposes of arguing the OP, you don't believe there's any objective morality. But for purposes of contending with me, you do...and in fact, you imply I'm in violation of this objective moral prohibition on "hypocrisy," to which you now suddenly subscribe.

But if that's how it is, how do you justify being angry with "hypocrites"? And if you are angry and condemning of me, but still believe there is no such thing as an objective basis for morality, how are you not now in violation of your own code against "hypocrisy"?

That would surely take some explaining.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no totally objective "grounding", except for those who believe that God has revealed his intentions and plan to us.

Right. We agree on that.

Again, it's the spirit of loving kindness which matters in the Sermon of the Mount and which overrides local phrases from first century Judaism, such as "Kingdom of God".

This seems selective.

On what basis would one know that one could ignore some aspects of the Sermon, cherry-pick others, and then say that one was fairly representing the Sermon on the Mount? One would need a principle for justifying such a move: and what would that be? That "things I like" are in, and "things that offend me" are out? But why would you assume that we should only take those parts of the Sermon on the Mount seriously that appeal to your personal tastes? That seems a shaky principle, for sure -- not one that has to appeal to anyone who feels differently than you do.

So what is your principle of selection? How do you justify the selectivity?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

There is no such thing.

If there were, you'd have provided references from Kant, which would have conclusively refuted my view. You did not: all you said, essentially, was "Go read Kant again, and find it for yourself, because I have no idea where it is, or even if it exists at all." But I'm certainly not going to do your work for you, far less go on an errand of looking for that which I'm quite confident simply does not exist, and which you claim to know does exist, though without being able to say where.

It appears I have indeed read quite enough of Kant to know he never provided grounding.

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

I'm not Muslim. I don't believe in Allah. I think he's a false god.

... non-theists are big contributors to charity and more so without any hidden conditions to please a God.

Nobody's denying that there are a few very generous Non-Theists. Who knows? Maybe you're one of them, too. That could be. But you ignored the fact that Non-theists contribute so little overall to the general human welfare that the world's charities, international aid initiatives or poverty relief organizations would all collapse if they had to rely on Atheist charity.

...theists are subliminally coerced to contribute to charity and not that they volunteer unconditionally.

I can see you don't know many Theists. Gratitude and compassion, not fear, are their major motives. I'm confident to say that of the thousands I know. And if there are perhaps some types out there somewhere that are motivated by some lesser concern, I'm confident to say that they're just not typical.

[Dubious]

But what is this red rage against "hypocrisy"? Since nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...

There's was a hell of a lot more wrong in the theistic world than there ever was in the secular one which had to remedy many of theism's many moral failings especially regarding women; religions have somehow always had a sex hangup! Of course, those like you who only read its sacred tomes wouldn't know about that or even wish to know. Regarding the bible and Koran's of the world ignorance is bliss.

I've lived long enough to know what a wretched, slithering, greasy hypocrisy looks like, feels like and sounds like whether theistic or secular. You remind me of all the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's out there and the decrepit pieces of human garbage they turned out to be.

Like any biblical or Koranic fundamentalist you possess a jihadist mentality against the secular and like all such groups any actual fact or belated truth which comes to light is simply revoked, ignored or considered anathema against its collective beliefs.

It really makes one wonder to what low depts the human brain can descend to where truth is a lie and beliefs become facts.

[Immanuel Can]

But what is this red rage against "hypocrisy"? Since nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...

There's was a hell of a lot more wrong in the theistic world...

You're so angry you're not thinking. There's a real point here, and it can't be answered in merely a, "I know you are but what am I" kind of way.

It's simply this: Theists can condemn hypocrisy because according to their morality, it's objectively wrong. Not only that, if somebody is a hypocrite, they're objectively wrong for being that, even if they don't agree that they are a hypocrite or that hypocrisy is objectively wrong. In that case, they're just objectively wrong too.

But Atheists have no basis for condemning anything -- including hypocrisy. From your worldview, you have no reason to expect anyone to have to agree with your moral judgments. In fact, you yourself believe they aren't objectively true.

So whence this anger? No injustice has been done you, even were every person on this board, and every person in the world a hypocrite -- that is, if Atheism is true.

So why are you angry? Only because secretly, you actually do believe morality is objective, hypocrisy is objectively wrong, and you've actually been wronged. (If you don't believe these things, why be angry at all?) But if you do believe them, then why are you an Atheist? Because Atheism can make no sense of your anger, and can provide no justification for your sense of injury, or of your hope I, or anybody else, ought to agree with your moral condemnations.

In an Atheist universe, with no objective morality, your anger has no warrant at all. Nobody's wronged you.

[Dubious]

But what is this red rage against "hypocrisy"? Since nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...

There's was a hell of a lot more wrong in the theistic world...

You're so angry you're not thinking.

It may seem to you like that, but I prefer calling a spade a spade and loathsome little liars like you have to be called out occasionally on your lying assertions such as the one highlighted which is not only a lie but an indictment coming from a proselytizer of a religion which has a huge amount of criminality and perversion underpinning it. But, as usual, you desist from responding to that accusation.

Your statement is so egregiously stupid, perverse and literally demented that if nothing were morally wrong in an atheistic world there would be no need for hardly any laws at all; so why even go to the trouble? It would be accepted that there is no such thing as "morally wrong". There would be no impediment to crimes being committed - or even considered as such - with no consequences to their actions.

So why is it that in the atheistic world we have more laws than your theistic one ever encompassed which were mostly simple prescriptions...Thou Shalt, Thou Shalt not...the ONLY morality you accept while condemning all others. Are these perhaps too complex vis-a-vis your own simple-minded version of it?

So why are you angry? Only because secretly, you actually do believe morality is objective, hypocrisy is objectively wrong, and you've actually been wronged.

I object to your continued silly use of the word "objective" as if any encountered morality could be described in those terms. If so, neither Islam or Christianity would have come to be since it was all arranged - or should that be "disarranged" - by humans. It shows you still have no idea what the word means in conjunction with morality along with the word "secular"!

As most know by now, value-systems are born and incubated within each specific culture. The closer they are geographically the more they have in common which can easily be seen in the history of the Middle East. The further removed the greater the differences when rendering their own domestic interpretations to the same inherited archetypes.

So please describe to me in what way morality can be described as objective as if it were a science fact??

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

There is no such thing.

If there were, you'd have provided references from Kant, which would have conclusively refuted my view. You did not: all you said, essentially, was "Go read Kant again, and find it for yourself, because I have no idea where it is, or even if it exists at all." But I'm certainly not going to do your work for you, far less go on an errand of looking for that which I'm quite confident simply does not exist, and which you claim to know does exist, though without being able to say where.

It appears I have indeed read quite enough of Kant to know he never provided grounding.

Note I have stated Kant's 5[five] Categorical Imperatives with justifications are his grounding for his Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
The CI as grounding for his Moral Framework is explained in his Critique of Practical Reason.
You don't have to go into the details, if you have read is book, just tell me why Kant is wrong and off target re grounding.

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

I'm not Muslim. I don't believe in Allah. I think he's a false god.

Whatever God you are grounded on for your morality [because God said so!], God by default is illusory thus a theistic moral system is groundless. I don't deny it can be useful in relation to certain time and circumstances but definitely not effective towards the future.

... non-theists are big contributors to charity and more so without any hidden conditions to please a God.

Nobody's denying that there are a few very generous Non-Theists. Who knows? Maybe you're one of them, too. That could be. But you ignored the fact that Non-theists contribute so little overall to the general human welfare that the world's charities, international aid initiatives or poverty relief organizations would all collapse if they had to rely on Atheist charity.

I don't believe the UN stats you linked is reliable.
Btw, note less than 10% of the world's population are non-theists, so you must take that into account.

Note this article, there are others;

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

Note this very famous Buddhist Charity Organization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzu_Chi
Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation, Republic of China, known for short as the Tzu Chi Foundation (Chinese: 慈濟基金會; literally "Compassionate Relief"), is a Taiwanese international humanitarian and non-governmental organization (NGO) with over 10 million members worldwide throughout 47 countries. It is operated by a worldwide network of volunteers and employees and has been awarded a special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

Note the potential of philanthropy in China [which is mainly Buddhists and non-theists];

1 Philanthropy in China is poised for exponential expansion
China has a long tradition of philanthropy but it stagnated after the 1949 communist revolution when private philanthropic initiatives and NGOs were shut down and foreign organisations told to leave the country.
Since the market reforms that have accelerated this century, private wealth has spiralled – China accounted for of Asia’s new billionaire entrepreneurs in 2015 – and philanthropy has seen a resurgence.
Between 2010 and 2016, donations from the top 100 philanthropists in mainland China more than tripled to $4.6bn (£3.6bn) and 46 of the wealthiest 200 now have foundations.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... ilanthropy

Note China now has the most billionaires, so the potential for greater number and quantum re philanthropy and donation by the average person.

You have to update yourself with more knowledge rather than being stuck to that limited [likely outdated] UN statistics.

...theists are subliminally coerced to contribute to charity and not that they volunteer unconditionally.

I can see you don't know many Theists. Gratitude and compassion, not fear, are their major motives. I'm confident to say that of the thousands I know. And if there are perhaps some types out there somewhere that are motivated by some lesser concern, I'm confident to say that they're just not typical.

I know, in principle theistic Muslims are commanded to be charitable but only to Muslims and not to non-Muslims. There goes your 1.5 billion theists in supporting genuine sincere charity.
Many Christians may thing they are contributing to charity out of compassion but the subliminal force is the fear of going to hell and their charity is to please God to ensure have a greater security to go to heaven with eternal life.

I believe genuine charity is the same all across humanity regardless of whether they are theists or non-theists. Any different is due to subliminal threats and compulsions via the doctrines and the clergy.

[Peter Holmes]

I want to reinforce what Dubious has said about Immanuel Can's calumny: '...nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...'

Mr Can has been determined to repeat this falsehood throughout our lengthy discussion, ignoring every question challenging theistic moral objectivism, and every demonstration of a rational foundation for secular humanist morality.

In response to Mr Can's seemingly impervious irrationality, I repeat some questions that, in my opinion, theistic moral objectivists need to address honestly.

1 Why does there being a god mean that morality is objective, which means factual - not dependent on anyone's judgement or opinion?

2 If a god commands or endorses them, are genocide, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery and infant genital mutilation therefore morally good? If not, how can a god's commands or nature be the source of a supposedly objective morality?

3 How can we know if a god's (or anyone's) commands or nature are morally good? Do we have to take the god's (or anyone's) word for it? And which god do we obey? Which brand of snake oil should we buy from which gang of hucksters? And is that a matter of judgement?

Anticipating Mr Can's failure to address these questions directly and honestly, I'm wondering if anyone else here cares to respond.

[Immanuel Can]

But, as usual, you desist from responding to that accusation.

Ad hominem. Not relevant to the OP.

And you missed the point. You're angry -- but in an Atheist world, you have no right to be, no actual cause to be, and zero expectation that another person has to agree with your moral assessment, whatever it may be. This is because it's not objectively related to anything. It's just a subjective feeling on your part.

You need a solution to that problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Note I have stated Kant's 5[five] Categorical Imperatives with justifications are his grounding for his Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Nothing grounds the CIs. Without our knowing why they are right, if they are, they cannot ground anything else.

Whatever God you are grounded on for your morality [because God said so!], God by default is illusory thus a theistic moral system is groundless.

Non-sequitur. If it's grounded in God, it's grounded in the final possible fact in the universe. And even if you don't believe in God, you'd have to see that conceptually, that would be correct if God existed.

I don't believe the UN stats you linked is reliable.

I don't blame you for not trusting the UN.

I know, in principle theistic Muslims are commanded to be charitable but only to Muslims and not to non-Muslims.

Correct. In fact, it's one of their 5 "pillars," but as you say, only to other Muslims in their particular group -- and not even to the "wrong kind" of Muslims, Muslims of other sects of Islam.

[Immanuel Can]

I want to reinforce what Dubious has said about Immanuel Can's calumny: '...nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...'

Mr Can has been determined to repeat this falsehood throughout our lengthy discussion, ignoring every question challenging theistic moral objectivism, and every demonstration of a rational foundation for secular humanist morality.

I'm still waiting for that "rational demonstration of a foundation for secular humanist morality." Let's see if it can do any real work. Tell me, according to the rationale of secular humanism, why are pedophilia, pre-meditated assassination and/or slavery "wrong." If that morality of yours can do any work at all, it should have no problem handling those easy cases.

If it can't even solve those cases, is there ANY moral dilemma, no matter how intuitively clear-cut, that this "rational foundation for secular humanist morality" can solve? Or is it completely impotent to do so? (If you don't like my three cases, choose one of your own, and show this "rational foundation" actually solving a moral question.)

1 Why does there being a god mean that morality is objective, which means factual - not dependent on anyone's judgement or opinion?

Easy. Because just as if there is a "gravity" nobody's "judgment or opinion" matters to whether or not they will die if they jump off a high building, if they are afoul of the objective moral precepts grounded in God, they will hit that "ground" every bit as hard, regardless of their "judgment or opinion" to the contrary.

2 If a god commands or endorses them, are genocide, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery and infant genital mutilation therefore morally good? If not, how can a god's commands or nature be the source of a supposedly objective morality?

God only "endorses" that which is consonant with His character. As the Supreme Being in the universe, He cannot be compelled by any means to do otherwise. If He could, He'd be less than "supreme," by definition.

3 How can we know if a god's (or anyone's) commands or nature are morally good? Do we have to take the god's (or anyone's) word for it? And which god do we obey? Which brand of snake oil should we buy from which gang of hucksters? And is that a matter of judgement?

Obey the one true God. That's the first commandment of the Big 10. We do have to take God's word for it, because we are personally unequipped to discern the true nature of morality in a consistent way, as the existence of this discussion shows. Also, don't buy snake oil.

[Peter Holmes]

I want to reinforce what Dubious has said about Immanuel Can's calumny: '...nothing is morally wrong in an Atheistic world...'

Mr Can has been determined to repeat this falsehood throughout our lengthy discussion, ignoring every question challenging theistic moral objectivism, and every demonstration of a rational foundation for secular humanist morality.

I'm still waiting for that "rational demonstration of a foundation for secular humanist morality." Let's see if it can do any real work. Tell me, according to the rationale of secular humanism, why are pedophilia, pre-meditated assassination and/or slavery "wrong." If that morality of yours can do any work at all, it should have no problem handling those easy cases.

If it can't even solve those cases, is there ANY moral dilemma, no matter how intuitively clear-cut, that this "rational foundation for secular humanist morality" can solve? Or is it completely impotent to do so? (If you don't like my three cases, choose one of your own, and show this "rational foundation" actually solving a moral question.)

I'm puzzled by your question. A rational starting point for any moral code is try to help rather than harm others, and pedophilia, assassination and slavery are harmful. It's rational for us to believe they're wrong, because our individual and collective survival and progress depend on (normally) helping and not harming others. Along with many other species - and not just the higher mammalian ones - we've developed, and are still developing - our moral values and judgements.

And to do this, we've had to slowly and painfully overcome some of the moral values commanded and endorsed in the Abrahamic scriptures. Why do you think slavery is morally wrong, when it's endorsed and never condemned in the Bible? Please can you answer that question, instead of as usual dodging it?

1 Why does there being a god mean that morality is objective, which means factual - not dependent on anyone's judgement or opinion?

Easy. Because just as if there is a "gravity" nobody's "judgment or opinion" matters to whether or not they will die if they jump off a high building, if they are afoul of the objective moral precepts grounded in God, they will hit that "ground" every bit as hard, regardless of their "judgment or opinion" to the contrary.

Perhaps you don't know what 'begging the question' means. 'Objective moral precepts are grounded in God, therefore morality is objective.' Hard to know where to begin with this. You could start with actually getting hold of a drawing board.

2 If a god commands or endorses them, are genocide, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery and infant genital mutilation therefore morally good? If not, how can a god's commands or nature be the source of a supposedly objective morality?

God only "endorses" that which is consonant with His character. As the Supreme Being in the universe, He cannot be compelled by any means to do otherwise. If He could, He'd be less than "supreme," by definition.

So you believe genocide, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery and infant genital mutilation are consonant with your god's character. And yet you believe (I hope) that those are moral atrocities. Cognitive and moral dissonance?

3 How can we know if a god's (or anyone's) commands or nature are morally good? Do we have to take the god's (or anyone's) word for it? And which god do we obey? Which brand of snake oil should we buy from which gang of hucksters? And is that a matter of judgement?

Obey the one true God. That's the first commandment of the Big 10. We do have to take God's word for it, because we are personally unequipped to discern the true nature of morality in a consistent way, as the existence of this discussion shows. Also, don't buy snake oil.

As always, in response to the hard questions challenging your theistic moral objectivism, you have no coherent, rational answer. Perhaps, somewhere in your mind, you recognise that your 'anything goes, might is right' charge against moral subjectivists is, in truth, the fundamental problem with your theistic belief - just do what (my) god says, because it must be morally good. And you just can't face it.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still waiting for that "rational demonstration of a foundation for secular humanist morality." Let's see if it can do any real work. Tell me, according to the rationale of secular humanism, why are pedophilia, pre-meditated assassination and/or slavery "wrong." If that morality of yours can do any work at all, it should have no problem handling those easy cases.

If it can't even solve those cases, is there ANY moral dilemma, no matter how intuitively clear-cut, that this "rational foundation for secular humanist morality" can solve? Or is it completely impotent to do so? (If you don't like my three cases, choose one of your own, and show this "rational foundation" actually solving a moral question.)

I'm puzzled by your question. A rational starting point for any moral code is try to help rather than harm others,

You mean it's not "rational" to apply a "survival of the fittest" view to the world of human affairs, and not worry about "harming" others, especially if it suits one to do it? It would be hard to see why that's not perfectly rational. If we are, after all, mere products of chance, time and evolution, why shouldn't we think it was the obvious rationality?

...and pedophilia, assassination and slavery are harmful.

Not to the perpetrators. Just to their victims. But what's "irrational" about hurting others, if one has incentive to do so? If I'm strong, and they're weak, and I have opportunity and will, why should I hold back, just because some defunct, purely subjective system of morality is suggested to me by the weak? Why shouldn't I regard myself as completely beyond the categories good and evil, just as Nietzsche said?

...It's rational for us to believe they're wrong, because our individual and collective survival and progress depend on (normally) helping and not harming others

.
That would only be true if I couldn't fool other people into doing what I want them to do, or deceive them as to what I was really doing. If I can convince them I'm a good person, all the while being just as bad as I want to be, that looks like a perfect win for me -- and perfectly rational, too.

Along with many other species - and not just the higher mammalian ones - we've developed, and are still developing - our moral values and judgements.

But you say none of these are "objective." So are you saying we're just getting better at deceiving ourselves as to the nature of objective reality? That hardly would seem a good thing, and not very evolutionarily wise or adaptive, and certainly not something to which any of us owes any allegiance.

And to do this, we've had to slowly and painfully overcome some of the moral values commanded and endorsed in the Abrahamic scriptures. Why do you think slavery is morally wrong, when it's endorsed and never condemned in the Bible?

You've skipped the prior problem.

We haven't even established that you, as a secular person, can ask a moral question, and have it make any sense. You have said that slavery is not objectively wrong; therefore, you are in no position to indict the "Abrahamic scriptures," as you call them, with anything. You're acting like a moral "cop," but you've not shown you've got any "badge." What right does Atheism have to ask any moral questions at all? It doesn't even have a description of morality, let alone any basis for asserting any.

Show the"badge." If Atheism's got a right to speak about morality, let's see why that would be. Because it has no grounds for any moral indictment. As you have yourself insisted, its judgments are merely subjective. But if that's true, then why does anybody them a response?

Perhaps you don't know what 'begging the question' means. 'Objective moral precepts are grounded in God, therefore morality is objective.' Hard to know where to begin with this.

It's not begging the question if God is the objective first fact of the universe. Nothing could be "grounded" in anything else, actually.

So you believe genocide, the oppression of women and homosexuals, slavery and infant genital mutilation are consonant with your god's character. And yet you believe (I hope) that those are moral atrocities.

Why do you "hope" that? What premise of Atheism gives you any "hope" to that effect? Atheism has no grounds for such judgments.

Unless you now have something???