What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can wrote:

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.

So, instead of answering my question, you try to deflect attention by challenging my right to ask moral questions at all. Why this evasion?

I think slavery is morally wrong, and I believe there are sound reasons to think that. And my question is: Why do you think slavery is morally wrong, when it's endorsed and never condemned in the Bible? Please answer that question.

Or try this one: If a god said slavery is okay, would that make slavery okay? Go on, surprise us all with a straight answer.

And by the way, atheism isn't an agent that can ask questions. It's just the rejection of a belief in a god or gods.

[Belinda]

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?

Because the spirit of each expressive communication is the intended theme of it, not the literal words. The spirit of the expressive communication may be evaluated according to the practical effect if it were to be acted upon. As Jesus said, you know a good tree by its fruit.

The theology of a first century Jew is likely to be inappropriate for the 21st century, but his moral theme is as good as new.

[Immanuel Can]

Because the spirit of each expressive communication is the intended theme of it, not the literal words.

That's not an answer, I'm afraid. It sounds neat, but it's really not.

How can one know what the "expressive communication," the "intended theme" is, except by reference to the words in which that expression is framed? Who then is the right interpreter of what Christ should have said, what He meant to say (according to this view) but clearly (again, according to this view) did not literally say?

Who's got the key to telling us that?

The spirit of the expressive communication may be evaluated according to the practical effect if it were to be acted upon. As Jesus said, you know a good tree by its fruit.

To judge the "practical effect," one must know what is the right effect. And to know that, one must know what the telos or ultimate purpose of our efforts is. But unlike in the case of trees, we don't have literal fruit: so what is the right "fruit" for a human being to produce, and how do you know it is the right "fruit," since you say you don't believe the literal words that describe that "fruit"?

If adopted, your view would effectively proclaim the individual as the rightful interpreter of what the Sermon on the Mount "really" means. But it must surely be clear to you that individuals can be good or bad, right or wrong in their interpretations, since these interpretations may differ. How do you know which is which, since you've abandoned the literal?

The theology of a first century Jew is likely to be inappropriate for the 21st century, but his moral theme is as good as new.

That seems unlikely. "Theology," could be defined primarily as the study of the nature of God -- and God is unchanging. "Morality," the subjectivists want to assure us, changes all the time, though they have no sound reason to think so.

If anything, you should think the theology is stable. But I would argue the morality is stable as well, and for precisely the same reason.

[Immanuel Can]

So, instead of answering my question, you try to deflect attention by challenging my right to ask moral questions at all. Why this evasion?

Not an evasion. You metaphorically showed up at my door proclaiming a judgment against "the Abrahamic Scriptures." I asked to see your authorization for making any moral judgments at all, and you have produced none at all. Why is that?

I think slavery is morally wrong, and I believe there are sound reasons to think that.

That's what I want to know. What are your "sound reasons"? For Atheism cannot supply those, nor can subjectivism: and it seems to me that you regard yourself as both, no?

So whence these "reasons," and what are they?

And my question is: Why do you think slavery is morally wrong, when it's endorsed and never condemned in the Bible? Please answer that question.

As soon as I see your badge, officer. First I must know if the question has any rational coherence, or no answer is owed.

And by the way, atheism isn't an agent that can ask questions. It's just the rejection of a belief in a god or gods.

Right. But "rejection of belief in a god or gods" does not supply any moral warrant, or any moral information at all. So you're going to have to get your credentials from somewhere, if (as you insist) that there is some moral wrongness about slavery, or whatever.

Who says slavery is wrong, and why? If you can tell me that, then I can understand your question as coherent and answer it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note the Framework and System of Science is grounded on certain assumptions.
The proof for the grounding based on these assumptions is that scientific theories works.

It is the same for the CIs which will work with the progress of Morality within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

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.

Note the point is here where God is claimed to exists, the immutable theological theistic moral model is infected with evil elements as evident in Islam, Judaism and Christianity [to some degrees].
In the theistic model, the morality is grounded on the 'existence of God' not the commands of God. The fact is the idea of God is illusory.

In the case of the CIs [require more refinement] the model for morality is not immutable but dynamic and is based on reason, rationality and objectivity.

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.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

As I expected, you won't or can't answer some very simple questions, such as: if a god said slavery is okay, would that make it okay? You won't or can't answer 'no', because that would expose the absurdity of basing moral values and judgements on a god's (or anyone's) commands.

To deflect attention, you demand to know my 'authorisation', 'credentials' or 'warrant' - what 'badge' I'm wearing - what right I have to moral opinions, to ask moral questions, and to condemn the disgusting immorality of the invented god of the Bible. I think your metaphors are revealing. They suggest we need permission or authority from someone or something else in order to make moral judgements. And there is the intellectual and moral distortion at the heart of theistic moral objectivism.

I and others can and do try to have or find sound reasons for what we believe and do - and for our moral values and judgements. But whatever explanations and justifications we have and offer always boil down to value-judgements that others can and sometimes do challenge - hence genuine moral dilemmas and debates, such as the one over capital punishment. There is no moral 'fact of the matter'. So there is no factual moral foundation analogous to the actual ground we'll actually hit when we jump from a tall building. (Stupid analogy.)

The one explanation or justification for moral judgements that is completely illegitimate is 'this is right/wrong simply because this person/god says it is'. That isn't a moral judgement at all, but rather the complete abrogation of moral judgement and responsibility. It's the 'I was only obeying orders' cop-out. It's what allowed Christian inquisitors to torture heretics, John Calvin to pontificate on divine goodness while his thugs smashed and murdered dissenters in the cellar. It's what made those criminals feel justified in flying planes into buildings.

The moral authorisation, credentials or warrant you claim to have because you believe in a god - is a dangerous delusion. You can't even show the god exists, nor its nature, nor what it commands. But even if you could show all of them, that still wouldn't mean that what the god commands must be morally good. That is an intellectually and morally corrupt conclusion.

I'm done with this discussion. And, strangely, I'm glad we've been through it, because you've given me a deeper insight into the appalling damage theistic belief - and the religions that peddle it - can do to otherwise intelligent and, no doubt, morally decent people. Ciao.

[Ginkgo]

Quote
And my question is: Why do you think slavery is morally wrong, when it's endorsed and never condemned in the Bible? Please answer that question.

Yes, please answer that question. Where in the scriptures does it say that slavery is morally wrong? How do you know God condemns slavery?

[Immanuel Can]

Note the Framework and System of Science is grounded on certain assumptions.

Not "grounded in." It "requires us to take for granted."

The proof for the grounding based on these assumptions is that scientific theories works.

Indeed. But what is the "test" for morality? As Hume noted, no moral precepts follow from empirical observations, or from observations of fact.

It is the same for the CIs which will work with the progress of Morality within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

This is not a possible explanation. In order to judge the "progress," we would already have to have a non-controversial version of what "progress" entailed. And we don't have that, because secularly speaking, there's no grounding for one view of "progress" over another...only conflicting views of what various people might want societies to "progress" toward, and not all of them palatable to our refined, Westernized tastes.

Note the point is here where God is claimed to exists, the immutable theological theistic moral model is infected with evil elements as evident in Islam,
Judaism and Christianity [to some degrees].

Nonsense. You can't saddle a belief system with the deeds of a system that radically disagrees with it at the theological, ontological and moral levels. Each such system stands on its own two feet, not on the deeds of some contrary view.

Meanwhile, from a Non-Theistic perspective, you simply cannot even know what "evil" is. Non-Theism has no equipment to help you with that task. All you can safely say is, "What is, is." There IS no "evil," in that worldview. Only things some people happen to like, and other things that other people happen not to.

In the theistic model, the morality is grounded on the 'existence of God' not the commands of God. The fact is the idea of God is illusory.

It's grounded in both, actually. There's no conflict between the two.

But as you rightly say, your problem with it is not that such beliefs are systematically incoherent or lacking in grounding -- it's only that you don't believe that the God on which they depend exists at all. And that's a perfectly understandable (though, I would argue, ultimately factually incorrect) basis for having an objection to Theistic morality. That makes perfect sense.

But you're still left with no account of morality at all, then.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

As I expected, you won't or can't answer some very simple questions, such as: if a god said slavery is okay, would that make it okay? You won't or can't answer 'no', because that would expose the absurdity of basing moral values and judgements on a god's (or anyone's) commands....

No, you're evading the question, Peter. But I understand why: it's unanswerable.

Your objection to me really translates as this: "Why does the God who doesn't exist violate a moral code I don't believe is objectively real?"

What can one say to the incoherence of such a question? And how does one go about answering it?

But the root problem is in the incoherence of blending Atheism and ethics. Nothing I can do can fix that. If you're going to be mad at God, you're going to have to entertain the possibility He exists. And if you're going to assert moral claims against Him, you're going to have to justify how you get a stable, objective account of morality without God.

You're in the position of a famous ex-Atheist, who afterward wrote, “I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”
-- C.S. Lewis

[Dubious]

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.

In one post I'm morally objective; in another I'm morally subjective!

You really are confused and need a solution to that problem!

You're not only a coward, you're a moral coward failing even secular baseline precepts of normal behavior and yet you claim the secular crowd has no reason to be moral...or if they are, it's without the sanction of some biblical Being and thus inferior. What a pathetic excessively stupid argument!

Is there really so much desperation among theists that even straw man fallacies are better than no arguments at all? It also begs the question what then justifies you being such an overt liar who's lost all sense of the rational.

The abject unflattering truth is you fall far short of measuring up to even the most basic standards of secular morality. If you established any truth beyond doubt in your endless preachings of unceasing sameness, which avoids every question you can't answer, it would be that.

An investigation of theistic and secular moralities defaults to this:

Which one is superior, the one forged by examination and conscience cognizant of fallibilities or the one forced by fiat knowing that the majority of humans under its sway are illiterate and depended on them remaining so.

Much of Christianity's sordid history could have been preempted had Gutenberg been born a thousand years prior.

But as Freud stated somewhat mildly in The Future of an Illusion....

Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanor.

It was always thus! The Weltanschauung of a fundamentalist must be severely restricted offering no complications; its the ONLY methodology available to maintain all the dead, defunct ideas it still subscribes to seeing nothing else in their horizon, even though there remains plenty to be acknowledged if that horizon is to keep enlarging and refining itself.

Brains imploding, crystallizing itself into a single creed has the absolute opposite effect of stars imploding forging new elements for subsequent creation. I'd rather have my mind, regardless of age, be more like the latter than imprisoned within the walls of dogma only to see daylight once in while.

Musically expressed freedom from any dogma is best described by this little episode...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzd7sbqGhdk

You should really try to get out more often.

[Dubious]

You're in the position of a famous ex-Atheist, who afterward wrote, “I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”
-- C.S. Lewis

Poor fellow!

Perhaps had he given it a little more thought he may have been able to separate the fiction he wrote from the one he decided to believe in.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the same for the CIs which will work with the progress of Morality within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

This is not a possible explanation. In order to judge the "progress," we would already have to have a non-controversial version of what "progress" entailed. And we don't have that, because secularly speaking, there's no grounding for one view of "progress" over another...only conflicting views of what various people might want societies to "progress" toward, and not all of them palatable to our refined, Westernized tastes.

At the moment we do not have any formal Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [FSME] of the Kantian model.
What I am discussing is merely its potential as the most effective system to take over the rigid theological moral model which has immutable evil elements.

The FSME includes a continuous improvement function [also Kantian] based on objective measurements of progress against an impossible ideal.
The striving towards an impossible ideal will definitely generate continuous improvements from any current status.

For example the UN had already set up the ideal [albeit impossible in practice] of "No More Chattel Slavery*" i.e. totally banned or eliminated voluntarily. This is not exactly a moral model but nevertheless a part of it. * as defined conventionally.
One can see there is a trend of continuous improvement to the culmination of banning of Chattel Slavery by law in all recognized countries.
The next phase is the continuous improvement in the elimination of Chattel Slavery in practice.
This progress can be measured by various means, e.g. less cases of genocides, rapes, murder, etc. as reported by reputable organizations.

Note the point is here where God is claimed to exists, the immutable theological theistic moral model is infected with evil elements as evident in Islam,
Judaism and Christianity [to some degrees].

Nonsense. You can't saddle a belief system with the deeds of a system that radically disagrees with it at the theological, ontological and moral levels. Each such system stands on its own two feet, not on the deeds of some contrary view.

There are various perspectives to the issue in term of main set and subsets.
There is notning wrong in referring to the main set of theism as long at we understand the the position of the subsets.
Note I assert there are evil elements within the 3 main Abrahamic religions of various degrees with Islam as the worst of the lot.

Meanwhile, from a Non-Theistic perspective, you simply cannot even know what "evil" is. Non-Theism has no equipment to help you with that task. All you can safely say is, "What is, is." There IS no "evil," in that worldview. Only things some people happen to like, and other things that other people happen not to.

Do you understand how the principles of etymology and meaning of words work?
Why should I be confined to your meaning of the term 'evil'.

Btw, what is your definition of 'evil'?

Note I have already I defined what is "evil" in terms of empirical human acts and thoughts and thus in this case, my concept of 'evil' is very objective. There are loads of consensus in my definition of evil.
Note this;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

and there are already tons of research on the topic of 'evil'.

You raised this question many times, hope you do not bring in this doubt again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the theistic model, the morality is grounded on the 'existence of God' not the commands of God. The fact is the idea of God is illusory.

It's grounded in both, actually. There's no conflict between the two.

But as you rightly say, your problem with it is not that such beliefs are systematically incoherent or lacking in grounding -- it's only that you don't believe that the God on which they depend exists at all. And that's a perfectly understandable (though, I would argue, ultimately factually incorrect) basis for having an objection to Theistic morality. That makes perfect sense.

But you're still left with no account of morality at all, then.

I admit the theological moral model had worked and even at present but it is not a thorough nor fool proof model for the future.

The problem with the theological moral model is that it works on the basis of fear and the existential crisis.
Then there is no denial there are evil elements in the theistic holy texts which are supposedly immutable, cannot be changed eternally.
While the basis of fear does restraint immoral acts, that fear also compel SOME evil theists to commit terrible evils and violence in the name of God. Whilst my focus is on Islam, Christianity and Judaism also has its evil elements that inspire the fundamentalists to commit terrible evils.

Note the Kantian Model is also grounded on God, i.e. a reasoned God [deism] which I don't agree with. But from this we can get rid of the idea of God [illusory] and ground it solely on the highest level reason objectively.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

As I expected, you won't or can't answer some very simple questions, such as: if a god said slavery is okay, would that make it okay? You won't or can't answer 'no', because that would expose the absurdity of basing moral values and judgements on a god's (or anyone's) commands....

No, you're evading the question, Peter. But I understand why: it's unanswerable.

Your objection to me really translates as this: "Why does the God who doesn't exist violate a moral code I don't believe is objectively real?"

What can one say to the incoherence of such a question? And how does one go about answering it?

But the root problem is in the incoherence of blending Atheism and ethics. Nothing I can do can fix that. If you're going to be mad at God, you're going to have to entertain the possibility He exists. And if you're going to assert moral claims against Him, you're going to have to justify how you get a stable, objective account of morality without God.

You're in the position of a famous ex-Atheist, who afterward wrote, “I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”
-- C.S. Lewis

No, as usual, you misrepresent the crucial issue in order to avoid having to address it face-on.

The existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant, because we're talking about the nature of objectivity.

Suppose a god does exist - and we know it does; suppose a scripture really is that god's 'word' - and we know it is; and suppose we clearly and unequivocally know and understand the god's nature and what it wants us to believe and do. In other words, grant everything you believe to be the case ...

That would NOT make morality objective. All it would mean is that a boss with certain moral opinions tells us what they are and we either do or don't go along with those opinions. For example, we either do or don't genitally mutilate our babies, to obey or disobey the god's command.

And that's why your 'worldview' is morally degenerate. You fundamentally misunderstand what the word 'objective' means, because you define it here as 'coming from a god's commands or nature' - and it doesn't mean that at all. A fact is a true factual assertion, and a factual assertion is independently true or false regardless of its source. A fact isn't true just because a god or anyone says it is. And moral assertions aren't factual anyway, because they express value-judgements.

But - we've done this a dozen times already, and as you've resolutely refused to understand your mistake and its implications for your argument, I'm not sanguine this time.

[uwot]

Suppose a god does exist - and we know it does; suppose a scripture really is that god's 'word' - and we know it is; and suppose we clearly and unequivocally know and understand the god's nature and what it wants us to believe and do. In other words, grant everything you believe to be the case ...

That would NOT make morality objective. All it would mean is that a boss with certain moral opinions tells us what they are and we either do or don't go along with those opinions. For example, we either do or don't genitally mutilate our babies, to obey or disobey the god's command.

Worth repeating, but completely wasted on Mr Can. The problem with Mr Can...hang on, better narrow that down a bit...the particular issue in this thread is that he has to believe in salvation. He is clearly alarmed by his mortality and other people being tortured forever by a supremely good god is worth it to save his own arse.
Anyway; he calls himself "a philosopher and a theologian both", which in practise means that he has watched a few William Lane Craig videos. One of the range of completely useless arguments the WLC peddles is the laughably circular 'argument from morality', which basically goes like this:
Only god can be a source of objective morality.
Humans display an understanding of objective morality.
Therefore god exists.
If Mr Can concedes the initial premise, the argument, hopeless as it is, completely collapses-god doesn't exist and Mr Can will cease to exist, when he shuffles off this mortal coil. It is literally a matter of life and death to him. If he wasn't such a self-righteous little berk, I'd feel sorry for him.