What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

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

Exactly. You're not being consistent. You speak as if morality is merely subjective, then expect to have an objective moral claim taken seriously. Which is it you believe?

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.

These are good examples of the kinds of objective moral claims you try to make. You believe I ought to take them as objectively true statements of value judgment -- but why should I, or any one else, take these attempted-objective moral claims seriously, if you're right about morality being merely subjective?

You need to be consistent. That's all I'm pointing out.

If morality is objective, you can assert the above value judgments against me, perhaps...but they I will ask you how you know them to be objective, of course. If they're merely subjective, then they are merely temporary, transient expressions of personal pique, and are unrelated to objective fact.

How do you want me to take them: as objectively true, or as merely subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

This progress can be measured by various means, e.g. less cases of genocides, rapes, murder, etc. as reported by reputable organizations.

This won't work either.

None of these actions that you list are more that culturally-locally decried, and are not universals. Genocide (for example, passionate antisemitism), rapes (such as so-called "judicial" or "revenge" rapes) and the murder (of infidels and converts to other religions) are all practiced as positive righteous duties in some factions of Islam, for example. These acts are not just seen as "good" but as particularly meritorious by them.

Meanwhile, "reputable organizations" are only "reputable" to local prejudices...there is no universal "reputability," and if there were, it would not indicate goodness...only popularity of a particular value or idea at a contingent place and time.

What you're doing is imposing your own definition of "progress" on the problem, and then assuming that all right-thinking people must agree with it. There's no justification in that confidence, but also no grounding that privileges your particular view of "progress" over that of the Islamists, unless there's something universal behind your version.

But what would that universal authorization be?

There is notning wrong in referring to the main set of theism as long at we understand the the position of the subsets.

But there's everything wrong with conflating evil persons with those who are not evil. That's like damning all women because some particular ones may have been found to be vain, foolish, promiscuous or devious. You wouldn't put up with that kind of prejudice for one second, would you?

So why would you do it to Theists?

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?[/quote]
Absolutely. I love linguistics.

But etymology will not solve conceptual problems. It will only tell us what people may have tried to mean by assembling words in particular ways: it won't tell us whether their assembling was accurate or justified by fact.

Why should I be confined to your meaning of the term 'evil'.

You're not. But the problem is not with me: I have a definition of "evil." The problem is for Non-Theists, and you in particular: because you claim to have a definition of "evil," but cannot say what makes a particular thing "good" or "evil" in a universal way.

Btw, what is your definition of 'evil'?

Disharmonious with the character, nature and will of God.

You raised this question many times,

Yes: but never having received a plausible answer from you. So I will raise it again.

hope you do not bring in this doubt again.

I will, of course. It's fundamental to our discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "worked" there, but if you mean "is conceptually coherent," then I agree. A conceptually coherent model is also exactly what we're looking for for the future, as an incoherent model will not work for anyone.

The problem with the theological moral model is that it works on the basis of fear and the existential crisis.

You seem totally wedded to this ad hominem dismissal. Neither logic, nor reasons, nor the weight of the word of the originator of this allegation has dissuaded you from clinging to it. So I can say no more about that, except it's manifestly wrong.

Then there is no denial there are evil elements in the theistic holy texts

You have grounded no account of what "evil" is. So really, you're not in a position to say this. But if you mean the Koran, or perhaps the Gita, I would have to agree with you. But to be fair, you ought to be specific.

[Immanuel Can]

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

No, look up at the OP: we're talking about the relevance of the adjective "objective" to the word "morality," in particular. We aren't debating, for example, the "objectivity" of science. We're debating its reference to value judgments.

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

So far, so good.

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.

Then you'll have to explain what you meant by the word "objective." Because IF there were a Creator, and IF He had made the world, and hence had created the very concepts of "good" and "evil" with reference to His own nature, then it would absolutely make morality "objective" in the ordinary sense of that word. They would be real, stable, objective qualities.

So perhaps you would help me understand what you are understanding as "objective." And maybe this will help us stop "talking past" each other, because I sense that's happening.

A fact is a true factual assertion, and a factual assertion is independently true or false regardless of its source.

Ah, perhaps this is it. You're concerned that Theistic morality refers to a "source"? Is that right?

Well, in the Theistic view, EVERYTHING refers to that same Source. The Bible speaks of God as the one "in Whom all things consist," and the one in Whom "we live, and move, and have our being." So from the Christian perspective, the ultimate reality is God, and even what you perhaps would regard as "objective" reality has no stability apart from God's sustaining activity.

If I've now understood your position, we are differing on this: that physical reality is your sine qua non, your a priori starting point for the term "objective." In contrast, my starting point is God, and physical reality is a contingent, created and secondary entity, and thus cannot itself ground the term "objective." In your worldview, physical reality is "objective" independently of all else. In mine, its "objectivity" is dependent on the objective presence and activity of the Creator.

That makes sense. Once again, we're differing on the ontological level, and this is expressing itself at the moral level. But if we've now understood each other, then it still raises some interesting problems.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Those morals that we all agree upon, become objective by default. Our concept of civility aims us in that direction. Of course any moral belief that is not shared collectively, must not necessarily be punished. Unless of course it denies one the freedoms of universal morality.

It's a falsehood that morality must be dictated by any, so called, deity! The, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," concept, along with the revised GR, is all we need to maintain a proper level if civility/morality.

The concept of morality has only ever been meant to be objective; and justice for all! I'm reminded of Abe's Gettysburg Address, "...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

objective
adjective
1 existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions; are there objective moral values?
2 undistorted by emotion or personal bias --www.dictionary.com--

So I understand that everything humans are concerned with can only ever come from subjectivity, because they are all born of our minds. But it's easy to see what we're trying to do. We start with our fear of not surviving, which is innate in each and every one of us, that's not mentally a vegetable. In that light it's easy to see the things that we don't want done to us as being universal. But of course as we get further from our fundamental concerns, continued life, it starts to get blurry. Of course all these differences are in fact determined by environment. So it should be easy for everyone to allow these differences, especially if they deny no one their particular brand of morality. We can't have everyone stepping on one anothers toes, especially when often the environments responsible for such differences are created by those complaining about them. Understanding the nature of these complex interactions is where objectivity should lie. Though many are either oblivious, or in denial, such that they blind themselves, so as to allow their selfish subjectivity to flourish.

Quite simply, a student of both philosophy and psychology can easily ferret out the objectivity of our morality, in the face of so much uninformed selfish subjective denial/ignorance! One simply has to be honest in understanding when they look into their mirror, contemplating what they truly see in that mind staring back at them. Unfortunately most can only ever look down their nose, from inside judging what's outside, they never 'know' a state of two way observation.

[Belinda]

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.

The Sermon on the Mount expresses human feelings especially human feelings as they should be when the human in question is untrammelled by legalistic strictures.
God is not unchanging as is seen by the history of God according to the OT. Neither are morals unchanging.
Not the isolated individual but all persons of feeling, imagination, reason, and experience can interpret the Sermon on the Mount . Legalistic literalism obscures the feeling to which each human has a right.
Do you really not know what causes suffering and what causes lasting happiness and peace?

No 'ology' is stable; all 'ologies' are human products and should not be idolised.

[Immanuel Can]

The Sermon on the Mount expresses human feelings especially human feelings as they should be when the human in question is untrammelled by legalistic strictures.

Well, nobody wants legalism, for sure...at least, nobody should. But that would be quite a different thing from saying one was so skilled in one's hermeneutics that one was qualified to interpret "what Christ really meant but didn't say." That would be a lot to take on.

God is not unchanging as is seen by the history of God according to the OT.

Interesting. It's the OT that says, "I, the Lord your God, change not." (Mal. 3:6) The most solid predication the ancient Hebrews made of God was that He could be counted on not to change His nature and intentions, even through the perils of human circumstance.

Neither are morals unchanging.

If by "morals" we mean a human construct that attempts to approximate objective values, then of course; but if we mean "morals" as in the objective truth about values themselves, then the answer would be "No."

Do you really not know what causes suffering and what causes lasting happiness and peace?

What causes suffering? That's complicated, of course. But "lasting happiness and peace"? That's different. And the two aren't necessarily at odds, actually. One who reads the Book of Job certainly comes to understand that.

No 'ology' is stable; all 'ologies' are human products and should not be idolised.

Quite. So while "theology" changes its views sometimes, the question has to be, "Does the Object of theological inquiry (i.e. God) change? The traditional answer is, "No," of course.

[Dubious]

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.

These are good examples of the kinds of objective moral claims you try to make.

Truth isn't moral. It could be described as thoroughly objective WITHOUT any moral implications. It's indifferent and the more indifferent it is the truer it's bound to be...meaning my statement on your character wasn't meant to be moral this or moral that but simply a description of fact...without any moral implications!

[Veritas Aequitas]

This progress can be measured by various means, e.g. less cases of genocides, rapes, murder, etc. as reported by reputable organizations.

This won't work either.

None of these actions that you list are more that culturally-locally decried, and are not universals. Genocide (for example, passionate antisemitism), rapes (such as so-called "judicial" or "revenge" rapes) and the murder (of infidels and converts to other religions) are all practiced as positive righteous duties in some factions of Islam, for example. These acts are not just seen as "good" but as particularly meritorious by them.

Meanwhile, "reputable organizations" are only "reputable" to local prejudices...there is no universal "reputability," and if there were, it would not indicate goodness...only popularity of a particular value or idea at a contingent place and time.

What you're doing is imposing your own definition of "progress" on the problem, and then assuming that all right-thinking people must agree with it. There's no justification in that confidence, but also no grounding that privileges your particular view of "progress" over that of the Islamists, unless there's something universal behind your version.

But what would that universal authorization be?

Those who commit evils acts, e.g. from genocides to the range of other evil are not thinking-rightly in term of right-thinking.

Note if genocide is universalized, then in theory and potentially the human species will be extinct, especially when WMDs are used.
If all the other evil acts are universalized then every one will be committing evil and suffering from evil acts in alignment with the inherent potential evil in them.

As such morally what must be universalized is the opposites of the above so that 'good' will prevail over 'evil'.

The universal moral law in a right-thinking approach must be [as in the above case].
'No genocide is permissible' or
'No acts of evil are permissible'
which is based on Kant's first CI on universality.

The above is the initial foundation to the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
The next question is how to implement it effectively.

There is nothing wrong in referring to the main set of theism as long at we understand the the position of the subsets.

But there's everything wrong with conflating evil persons with those who are not evil. That's like damning all women because some particular ones may have been found to be vain, foolish, promiscuous or devious. You wouldn't put up with that kind of prejudice for one second, would you?

So why would you do it to Theists?

It depends on what reasons [good or evil] we are 'conflating' or rather making it universal.
In my case it is toward a net-positive factor.

My point is;

• Theism emerge to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
  
  Theism [not all some specific theistic ideology] has evil elements and inspire SOME believers to commit evil acts.
  
  It is too complex to prevent evil acts by dealing with the specific ideologies which has evil elements and they are believed by the majority [Abrahamic believers comprised 5/7].
  
  Thus it would be more feasible to replace theism with fool proof [note] alternative to replace theism in resolving with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

It is same with handling a cure for some serious disease-X using a certain drug but that drug has very serious side effects on 20% of patients.
Thus it would be more efficient to find an alternative drug that has no side effects at all to replace the older drug in curing the same disease-X.

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?

Absolutely. I love linguistics.

But etymology will not solve conceptual problems. It will only tell us what people may have tried to mean by assembling words in particular ways: it won't tell us whether their assembling was accurate or justified by fact.

Note I have defined the term 'evil' and justified all my points in this term with arguments, facts and evidences.

Why should I be confined to your meaning of the term 'evil'.

You're not. But the problem is not with me: I have a definition of "evil." The problem is for Non-Theists, and you in particular: because you claim to have a definition of "evil," but cannot say what makes a particular thing "good" or "evil" in a universal way.

Btw, what is your definition of 'evil'?

Disharmonious with the character, nature and will of God.

That is meaningless.
It is also groundless since the idea of God is illusory.
The character and nature of God is only confined to what is in the holy texts that are supposed delivered by God. [actually by men].
The texts from God [illusory] of the major theistic religion contain evil elements which has inspired [based on fear and imaginary rewards] SOME believer to commit terrible evil acts.

It would be more useful and effective to define 'evil' in term of empirical evil acts and thoughts and contrast them against reasoned universalized moral laws put into practice within a dynamic Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

You raised this question many times,

Yes: but never having received a plausible answer from you. So I will raise it again.

hope you do not bring in this doubt again.

I will, of course. It's fundamental to our discussion.

Note I have referred the SEP link many times and linked various researches on 'evil' as defined.
You should counter them on why they are not 'evil' as defined or why no one should use the term 'evil' other than the ones of your like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "worked" there, but if you mean "is conceptually coherent," then I agree. A conceptually coherent model is also exactly what we're looking for for the future, as an incoherent model will not work for anyone.

The theological moral model based on God's command has worked because many [not all] theists who has potential to commit evil acts are held back for fear of God, sinning and going to hell.
I have also read of many testimonials of Christians and religious converts who stopped committing evil acts [stealing, crimes, murder, rapes, etc.] after conversion. There are those who had relapsed.
But in some cases, while some have stopped certain evil acts they nevertheless commit other evil acts which they deem 'good' in the eyes of their God, notably SOME Muslims.
But there are Christians who went on to burn abortion clinics, etc.

The problem with the theological moral model is that it works on the basis of fear and the existential crisis.

You seem totally wedded to this ad hominem dismissal. Neither logic, nor reasons, nor the weight of the word of the originator of this allegation has dissuaded you from clinging to it. So I can say no more about that, except it's manifestly wrong.

You are really off base here. This is not an ad hominen thing.
Do you regard all psychiatric and psychological diagnoses by professionals as ad hominens?

I had already justified my hypothesis with arguments and evidence.

You have not countered my point effectively that one of the ground of theism is psychology and the existential crisis.

Most theists will definitely deny it but there are tons of articles to support my point.

Note:

Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they fear the wrath of God the most, followed by their spouse 15 percent, their parents 11 percent and their boss seven percent.
No one wants to feel the wrath of their spouse, parents or boss, but America has always been known as a God-fearing nation and this confirms that it still is.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes ... poll-fear/

From the above, it is all the way psychological for the belief in a God [illusory].

Then there is no denial there are evil elements in the theistic holy texts

You have grounded no account of what "evil" is. So really, you're not in a position to say this. But if you mean the Koran, or perhaps the Gita, I would have to agree with you. But to be fair, you ought to be specific.

In you state, you just cannot see the 500 pound gorilla in the room!
I have defined 'evil' in the other posts.
The Bible also has evil elements of a lesser degree [than Quran] that trigger SOME Christians to commit evil acts, like burning of abortion clinics, Jew hatred, even slavery then [Jim Crow], etc. [btw, not crusades, inquisition which are human driven not via Bible-NT per se ]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then you'll have to explain what you meant by the word "objective." Because IF there were a Creator, and IF He had made the world, and hence had created the very concepts of "good" and "evil" with reference to His own nature, then it would absolutely make morality "objective" in the ordinary sense of that word. They would be real, stable, objective qualities.

How can you say 'absolutely' [totally unconditional] when you use the conditional "IF".

If only God exists as real.
But the fact is, God is an illusion and an impossibility to be real.
As such there will never be any absolutely objective morality from a real God.
I agree at present there are theological moral models which work to some degrees but they are man-made, not complete and fool proof.

Ah, perhaps this is it. You're concerned that Theistic morality refers to a "source"? Is that right?

Well, in the Theistic view, EVERYTHING refers to that same Source. The Bible speaks of God as the one "in Whom all things consist," and the one in Whom "we live, and move, and have our being." So from the Christian perspective, the ultimate reality is God, and even what you perhaps would regard as "objective" reality has no stability apart from God's sustaining activity.

If I've now understood your position, we are differing on this: that physical reality is your sine qua non, your a priori starting point for the term "objective." In contrast, my starting point is God, and physical reality is a contingent, created and secondary entity, and thus cannot itself ground the term "objective." In your worldview, physical reality is "objective" independently of all else. In mine, its "objectivity" is dependent on the objective presence and activity of the Creator.

Note:

P1 From the Christian and mine perspective -this is subjective,
P2, the ultimate reality is God,
C therefore P2 is subjective.

therefore the morality from a subjective God is subjective.

What makes the above subjective is due to the intersubjective consensus of theist which of course is not agreed by non-theists.
Thus what is objective is merely intersubjective-consensus.

This is what Science is about.
While Science it provable via testing and confirmation by anyone to adhere to the procedure, theism cannot be tested at all thus cannot be confirm by anyone and all.

[Immanuel Can]

This progress can be measured by various means, e.g. less cases of genocides, rapes, murder, etc. as reported by reputable organizations.

This won't work either.

None of these actions that you list are more that culturally-locally decried, and are not universals. Genocide (for example, passionate antisemitism), rapes (such as so-called "judicial" or "revenge" rapes) and the murder (of infidels and converts to other religions) are all practiced as positive righteous duties in some factions of Islam, for example. These acts are not just seen as "good" but as particularly meritorious by them.

Meanwhile, "reputable organizations" are only "reputable" to local prejudices...there is no universal "reputability," and if there were, it would not indicate goodness...only popularity of a particular value or idea at a contingent place and time.

What you're doing is imposing your own definition of "progress" on the problem, and then assuming that all right-thinking people must agree with it. There's no justification in that confidence, but also no grounding that privileges your particular view of "progress" over that of the Islamists, unless there's something universal behind your version.

But what would that universal authorization be?

Those who commit evils acts, e.g. from genocides to the range of other evil are not thinking-rightly in term of right-thinking.

That's a circular definition. You can't rationally justify a claim by reference to that same claim.

Note if genocide is universalized,

It won't be. Even Kant thought "universalizability" was merely an heuristic device, not an empirical test. So that's a worry we can't really have.

As such morally what must be universalized is the opposites of the above so that 'good' will prevail over 'evil'.

With no definition of "good" and "evil" in place, we can't recognize when these things "prevail." So we can't recognize when the situation is "moral" and when it's not. That's the problem with Non-Theistic "ethics."

[Immanuel Can]

The problem with the theological moral model is that it works on the basis of fear and the existential crisis.

You seem totally wedded to this ad hominem dismissal. Neither logic, nor reasons, nor the weight of the word of the originator of this allegation has dissuaded you from clinging to it. So I can say no more about that, except it's manifestly wrong.

You are really off base here. This is not an ad hominen thing.
Do you regard all psychiatric and psychological diagnoses by professionals as ad hominens?

Of course not. But this isn't a "diagnosis" at all. As I've shown, it's nothing more than a superficial dismissal, dependent on an obviously self-defeating rationale. The fact that you couch it in the mere terms of simple psychology doesn't make it into sound psychiatric analysis...or truth.

I had already justified my hypothesis with arguments and evidence.

I note your strategy of saying such things, even though you haven't done them at all. I doubt anybody's fooled, though.

You have not countered my point effectively that one of the ground of theism is psychology and the existential crisis.

I have. Your "point" undermines all belief systems equally. I might as easily allege that you're only an Non-Theist because you "want" there to be no God, because it gives you a "fear and existential crisis" to think there is.

Most theists will definitely deny it but there are tons of articles to support my point.

Codswallop. If there are any such, then they are definitely not articles by people who know anything about logic.

From the above, it is all the way psychological for the belief in a God [illusory].

Did you read it? It asks the leading question, "Whose wrath do you fear the most?" Any sane person who believes in God is going to say "God." What else would there be in the entire universe that a rational person who entertained even the possibility of the existence of the Supreme Being could answer? "Spiders"? Really, it's surprising the percentage is only 57!

Meanwhile, your article says nothing about evidence for God being "illusory," and nothing about whether this belief is rational or merely "psychological," as you put it. That's nothing more than your own gloss on it...not at all supported by the article.

Did you really expect that to make your point? Holy cow.

I have defined 'evil' in the other posts.

Again, no you have not. Sorry to contradict, but I have not seen it from you.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth isn't moral. It could be described as thoroughly objective WITHOUT any moral implications.

Then it makes no sense for you to use moral language in connection with it.

If you expect your pejoratives "coward," "hypocrite," etc. to be objectively true, such that other people "ought" to agree with them and I "ought" to be insulted by them, then you have a problem -- they are value judgments. They imply "bad." If you don't mean to imply something "bad" about me, then they're not criticisms of me at all. But you do: even though you don't believe in anything being really "bad," because you don't believe values are objective.

As Hume showed, there is no way to get from a fact (or a "truth" of the kind you acknowledge) to a basis for any value judgment. If you really believe that there are no objective values, just facts, and if you apply objective valuations to me, then you are...what's the word for someone with two faces? Oh yes: hypocrite.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This won't work either.

None of these actions that you list are more that culturally-locally decried, and are not universals. Genocide (for example, passionate antisemitism), rapes (such as so-called "judicial" or "revenge" rapes) and the murder (of infidels and converts to other religions) are all practiced as positive righteous duties in some factions of Islam, for example. These acts are not just seen as "good" but as particularly meritorious by them.

Meanwhile, "reputable organizations" are only "reputable" to local prejudices...there is no universal "reputability," and if there were, it would not indicate goodness...only popularity of a particular value or idea at a contingent place and time.

What you're doing is imposing your own definition of "progress" on the problem, and then assuming that all right-thinking people must agree with it. There's no justification in that confidence, but also no grounding that privileges your particular view of "progress" over that of the Islamists, unless there's something universal behind your version.

But what would that universal authorization be?

Those who commit evils acts, e.g. from genocides to the range of other evil are not thinking-rightly in term of right-thinking.

That's a circular definition. You can't rationally justify a claim by reference to that same claim.

You are lost in this case and simply arguing meaninglessly for just to counter for its sake.

The above is as simple as people who commit genocides are not thinking with the right-thinking in reference to the consensus of the majority.
True a minority believes their acts of genocides [they are merely doing good in god's name] is not immoral, but I am arguing that is because of theism condoning immorality in this sense.

Note if genocide is universalized,

It won't be. Even Kant thought "universalizability" was merely an heuristic device, not an empirical test. So that's a worry we can't really have.

Note the argument based on the highest reason possible is,
if genocide is universalized and thus cause the greatest evil act possible, i.e. exterminating the human species, then it is obvious the universalization of 'no genocides at all' would promote the greatest good.
Since morality is about the greatest good, we should adopt the maxim of 'no genocides at all' as a guide.
What is wrong with that logic?

As such morally what must be universalized is the opposites of the above so that 'good' will prevail over 'evil'.

With no definition of "good" and "evil" in place, we can't recognize when these things "prevail." So we can't recognize when the situation is "moral" and when it's not. That's the problem with Non-Theistic "ethics."

I have defined 'evil' many times all over the place and if I am not mistaken even directly to you in response to your posts. [..I will have to search for that].

Here is one post where I defined 'evil' in a direct response to you.

I defined 'evil' in term of any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom to humanity. Those in bold are very loaded thus need some explanation.

Thus what is good is the opposite of what is evil as defined above.

So next time don't denial and lie blatantly!