What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 am implying the idea of God has to do with the theists' mind which by definition is psychological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

To me it is the truth and I have provided my justifications.
I can understand, you as a theist, will definitely do not agree, that is why we are having a discussion [thus in this forum] on this contentious issue.

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.

I understand your need to deny.
The discussion will continue less you want to give up.

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.

I readily admit there is an existential crisis embedded deep in my psyche and I had relied on God to relieve the subliminally existential pains long time ago.
Knowing that God is illusory and responsible in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils and violence I had graduated from relying on God to other secular approaches to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma embedded in my psyche.

Why I critique theism overall [especially Islam] is due to the very glaring evil acts and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired by their God.

I agree with you that I "want" there to be no God, because it gives me real "fears and existential crisis" because when theists think there is a real God they [a critical SOME] are inspired to commit terrible evils and violence in the name of their God.
This is why I am not an islamophobe because I have real [not irrational] fears of Islam's evil potential inferred from real terrible evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslim. It the same with SOME evil prone Christians committed lesser degrees of evil acts.

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.

Note here is one neuroscientific correlation to the idea of God in relation to temporal epilepsy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Many who suffered from temporal epilepsy experienced God directly but they would prefer to get cured from the temporal epilepsy rather than continuing with the 'false belief' they are an agent of God.
It is likely Jesus, Muhammad, Paul, St. Theresa and others of the likes suffered from temporal epilepsy or something similar that gave them 'direct experience of God' like the kid above.
But in those days, there were no psychiatrists to check them so they got away with claiming they are an agent of God.

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!

Note my point is a belief in God is driven by fear.
If fear is not a critical element, they will not say fear - a real emotion.
Those who are pantheist, panentheists, e.g. advaita vedanta will not relate God with fear at all!

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.

The point was fear & God not re illusion in this specific point.

I have defined 'evil' in the other posts.

Again, no you have not. Sorry to contradict, but I have not seen it from you.
[/quote]
Note my reminder and reference above to your amnesia [if not this then it a blatant lie].

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Which "majority," and how do we know when the "majority" is actually right? In Non-Theist thought, we never do -- for no standard exists. We cannot establish when the "majority" is right and when it's wrong, or even IF majority opinion is related to rightness at all.

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?

Both "greatest" and "good" are undefined terms there. What makes something "good," and what makes it the "greatest" kind of good? You can't know.

You said that it was whatever the majority believes. The majority in Saudi is Islamic. You have already said, though, that you don't think this "majority" is right. Why not? Then what is "good" for them might be the subjugating of all women, or the killing of minority homosexuals. On what basis do you, as a Non-Theist, judge their actions?

You see the problem with any such answer, I'm sure.

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].

Please do. I have only seen you define it as something like the above (majoritarianism), which is clearly not a defensible answer. If you have a defensible definition of evil, it would help us a great deal.

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.

This isn't defensible. Once again, your key terms are undefined, and you expect us to take them for granted. You don't define "net-negative," or "well-being," and you don't tell us anything about how evil is defined when the interests of "the individual" are not the same as those of "humanity." So you're right to say "they need some explanation."

It was not my intent to "lie," as you put it. I couldn't recognize these vague statements as the sort of actual "definition" upon which a rational person would wish to stand without better explanation than I have seen so far. But you are technically correct: if inadequate "definitions" are included, then you have indeed made a try at explaining what evil is -- perhaps just not with any degree of success, apparently. But I trust you'll supply the missing pieces.

[Immanuel Can]

I am implying the idea of God has to do with the theists' mind which by definition is psychological.

I can see very well what you're implying. It's just not a good argument, as I have pointed out. You need a new implication.

The discussion will continue less you want to give up.

I readily admit there is an existential crisis embedded deep in my psyche and I had relied on God to relieve the subliminally existential pains long time ago.

That is interesting. I appreciate your candour. But there isn't a rational justification for your "transference" of your personal experience onto all potential Theists. Just because that's how you experienced things does not mean that's the only way they can be experienced.

Knowing that God is illusory and responsible in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils and violence I had graduated from relying on God to other secular approaches to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma embedded in my psyche.

I get that. But it's not how things have come together for me, or for most of the Theists I know...and of them, I know more than most people will in a lifetime.

Why I critique theism overall [especially Islam] is due to the very glaring evil acts and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired by their God.

I have no objection to that claim. I see the same, especially in Islam, but also in some other systems. But I also see that Atheists killed 148 million people in the last century alone -- far more than have ever been killed by all religions combined. We must not forget that, if we remember nothing else.

So perhaps it's only where you live that Islam is the biggest problem: on a world scale, Atheism is a far more fatal belief.

This is why I am not an islamophobe

There's no such thing. A "phobia" is, by definition, an irrational and unfounded fear. Islam has abundantly proved itself as a rightful cause of fear, since it is the most fatal religion, accounting for half of all religion-based killings in history. But it's still far, far less fatal than Atheism has proved to be.

It the same with SOME evil prone Christians committed lesser degrees of evil acts.

Catholicism is the most fatal (nominally) "Christian" creed, historically (though a fraction of the Islamic total, and an incredibly small fraction compared to the Atheists). But even the Catholic record has only been in open defiance of the example of Jesus Himself, who never fought wars, tortured people, or was violent even to enemies, and in fact taught that we ought to "pray for" and "do good to those who use you with spite." In contrast, of course, there is Mohammed, who was a warlord who killed his enemies with the sword and encouraged his followers to continue that practice to the present day. And on the Atheist side, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and all their homicidal kind.

It's important to give blame where blame is due; but also to give credit where credit is due. I'm sure you agree.

Note here is one neuroscientific correlation to the idea of God in relation to temporal epilepsy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I don't really have to say it, do I: "correlation is not causality": that's the most basic kind of axiom of scientific epistemology. The pointing to a couple of mentally-ill people does not explain the experience of those who are not mentally ill. And there are far, far too many Theists for us to suppose they're all mentally ill. So that explanation just doesn't work either.

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!

Note my point is a belief in God is driven by fear.

Again, this may be your experience, or it may be what you see around you, as you look at Muslims. I do not doubt your word, in their case.

Neither observation ought to lead you to think it is the general experience of Theists. Again, psychologically speaking, this is just an example of "transference": suppositionally transposing your own local experience to others who, in this case, are not of the same kind.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

I think you're being disingenuous here. I defined objectivity as 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions' right at the start of my OPs, and I've argued consistently that moral assertions are different from factual assertions, because they express value-judgements, beliefs or opinions rather than factual claims. You've consistently failed to acknowledge or even understand that distinction. And it has nothing to do with ontology - what there is - but rather it's about what we say - the claims we make.

To repeat: A fact is a true factual assertion, and a factual assertion is independently true or false regardless of its source. It follows that what you claim about a god's being the source of everything has no bearing on the truth-value of a factual assertion. With regard to factual truth or falsehood, a god's character, nature, will or commands are irrelevant - even if the god did create and does sustain everything. Or do you think a god can make a true factual assertion false by fiat?

From this, it follows that, if, as you claim, morality is objective - so that, for example, it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong - that can't be simply because a god says it's wrong, or because it's inconsistent with the god's nature. The supposed objective foundation (in a god's nature) you claim for moral values and judgements is an illusion, because facts are independently true. As I've repeatedly pointed out, you simply misunderstand the nature of objectivity and the function of factual assertions.

And it gets worse. If, as you claim, goodness is that which is consistent with a god's character, nature and will - reflected in the god's commands - then anything the god is supposed to command or endorse must, by definition, be morally good. And that's the point of the question you've repeatedly refused to answer: if a god endorses (or fails to condemn) slavery, does that mean slavery is morally acceptable? Please don't dodge this yet again by asking what grounds I have for asking moral questions. That isn't relevant. You claim a god is the objective source of moral values and judgements. So you can demonstrate that in the context of the morality of slavery. Will you surprise us all by giving a straight answer?

(Needless to say, your whole case rests on an objectively unjustified belief in the existence of a creating and sustaining god - the absence of evidence for the existence, nature and predilections of which makes such belief irrational. Your much-vaunted 'foundation' is no more than a speculation. But that's another argument.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

...I also see that Atheists killed 148 million people in the last century alone -- far more than have ever been killed by all religions combined.

Total bullshit! No such statistic exists that could possibly claim such with any degree of certainty. As usual, idiots can show no substantial proofs. Instead they simply talk shit.

God, (snicker,snicker), I hate liars!

[SpheresOfBalance]

But it's not how things have come together for me, or for most of the Theists I know...,

As if you'd necessarily know it. A foolish proposition!

and of them I know more than most people will in a lifetime.

I'm sure everyone here knows how you tend to falsely stroke your ego, as evidenced by how you sidestep those points you have no defense against!

uwot continues to crush your words and I've noticed how you tend to avoid him.

God, (snicker, snicker), a hate liars!

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Again an obvious lie, as if your false god is what you say he is, why one earth would anyone have fear of or an existential crisis due to his existence.

Total half baked bullocks as usual!

And the simple fact is that neither you nor anyone else can "prove" that your imaginary god exists. So It's obviously all in your heads, which definitely pleads VA's case! Your belief is the same as that of leprechauns and faeries.

[Belinda]

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.

[/quote]

But hermeneutics are not what Christ(sic)meant . Hermenetics are interpretations. There is no way to understand any text whatsoever other than by interpreting it.You interpret, I interpret, everybody interprets.The Sermon on the Mount is not a legal document it's a sermon.A sermon is a text.

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.

Jahweh and El are not who most people worship as God.

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."

I mean the former. The latter does not exist. You are an idolator if you claim that your morals are objectively true.The only objectively true is God. God is ineffable and is not coterminous with any moral system: not St Paul's: not that of Jesus: not Calvin's: not Immanuels Can's: not mine.

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.

The whirlwind of that place is made visible by the agitated and meaningless movements of sand and small dried plants.Job had no more notion of God's intentions tha he had of the whirlwind. Job therefore obeyed the religious tradition which he knew through faith.

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.

But theology is the study of God, and the study of God includes the ontology of God. To study the ontology of God is not to presuppose that God exists. The study of being is a main branch of metaphysics. Metaphysics may be approached through reason but in the end metaphysics and one's worldview depends upon faith. Your literal bibliolatry, Immanuel, fails to address the metaphysics of being.

[Peter Holmes]

My OP question is: what could make morality objective? And by 'objective' I mean 'relying on - or a matter of - facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'. For example, is the moral assertion 'slavery is wrong' a fact - a true factual assertion - or is it a value-judgement? The crucial point being that a value-judgement is neither true nor false in the way a factual assertion is true or false.

Some secular moral objectivists claim that slavery is morally wrong because (say) it harms people. But that assumes that harming people is morally wrong, which is a value-judgement. Push our reasons or justifications for our moral values and judgements back as far as we can - and we'll always arrive at another moral judgement. Whatever we claim about existence and nature - life is preferable to death, knowledge to ignorance, happiness to unhappiness, thriving to dwindling - and so on - is a value-judgement. And that's just the way it is. We build and repair our collective moral values and judgements on foundations and with materials of our own making - because we have no choice.

Some theistic moral objectivists claim that slavery is wrong because it's incompatible with the nature and will of a good god that both (of course) exists and created and sustains everything. But to say a god is good is to make a value-judgement, based on moral criteria. And to say those criteria are rooted in the god's nature and will is to say the god is good because the god is good, which is no justification at all, because it begs the question. Like its secular version, theistic moral objectivism has no foundation. (Of course, whether a god exists is a separate question and problem for theists.)

The truth is that morality is subjective - which is just to say that moral assertions express value-judgements rather than factual claims. And to say that means there's no such thing as morality - that our moral values and judgements are empty, pointless or meaningless - is to misunderstand the nature of morality in the first place.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you're being disingenuous here.

I'm not.

I defined objectivity as 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions' right at the start of my OPs,

In that case, not even science is "objective," since it relies on judgments...and also on guesses, hypotheses, interpretations of data, and the personal integrity of those performing, analyzing and publishing scientific papers. So there would be no such thing as an "objective" fact in the empirical world, if we take your definition.

However, it depends what you take for "facts," too. I have argued consistently that ontology precedes ethics -- meaning that until we settle what are the basic "facts" in play, and in particular the existence or non-existence of the Creator and Judge of morality, we won't have a suitable picture of what an "objective" morality would look like.

But the Atheists are in deeper on this one. They have no grounds for believing morality exists at all, except as a completely contingent, human, cultural, subjective phenomenon, with no reference to ultimate truth or actual "rightness." Given that, an Atheist can't even pose the question of the OP coherently. To paraphrase, the OP is then asking, "What could make an illusory thing objective?" And the answer, of course, would be "Nothing." But the problem is in the suppositions of the framer of the question, not in the question itself.

and I've argued consistently that moral assertions are different from factual assertions, because they express value-judgements, beliefs or opinions rather than factual claims. You've consistently failed to acknowledge or even understand that distinction.

Not at all. I'm entirely with David Hume on this one, and with Nietzsche too, of course. I agree with both when they say that a fact has no correlation to any value, if Atheism is true. Absolutely right. I'll give you that one.

And it has nothing to do with ontology - what there is - but rather it's about what we say - the claims we make.

That's incorrect. But you can see that even from your own wording: what does it matter what "claims" we make if morality doesn't even exist as a real, obligating thing (ontologically)? Who are "we" anyway, then? Just blobs of accidental protoplasm floating around in an unguided universe. "We" certainly can't make morality "objective."

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

Now who is failing to distinguish between facts and values? Value judgment are adjectival -- they attribute particular value qualities to things. Those value qualities may be apt or inapt, and they are still very real. But no value judgment ever happens without somebody "valuing" something, so they don't pass your fact-test. That's the fault of your test: it fails to account for things that positively require a source, like perceptions, identities, value judgments, and, of course, morality.

It follows that what you claim about a god's being the source of everything has no bearing on the truth-value of a factual assertion.

Sure it does. If God is the touchstone of morality, and morality cannot exist as a real and objective thing without Him, then morality is God-dependent but real. And in the Christian view, not only is that true of morality, but the entire material world is God-dependent as well, as I pointed out in my message above. So Theism denies the false dichotomy of "fact" and "value": and affirms the objectivity of both as dependent on God.

With regard to factual truth or falsehood, a god's character, nature, will or commands are irrelevant - even if the god did create and does sustain everything. Or do you think a god can make a true factual assertion false by fiat?

There are actually quite a few things God "cannot" do -- meaning, he does not ever do them, because He is not a contingent being, and as such, in never compelled to act in any way that is not entirely harmonious with his own character. So God "cannot" lie, tempt, sin, fail, or cease to be what He is. The Bible describes Him specifically in just those ways.

From this, it follows that, if, as you claim, morality is objective - so that, for example, it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong - that can't be simply because a god says it's wrong, or because it's inconsistent with the god's nature.

False dichotomy. A synonym for "wrong" IS "inconsistent with the nature of God." They're identical.

The supposed objective foundation (in a god's nature) you claim for moral values and judgements is an illusion, because facts are independently true.

Nothing but God Himself is completely "independently" anything.

And it gets worse.

It would have to...because it's not at all bad so far.

If, as you claim, goodness is that which is consistent with a god's character, nature and will - reflected in the god's commands - then anything the god is supposed to command or endorse must, by definition, be morally good.

Correct. But I rejected your premise that God condones slavery. You will argue that any allowing of it to happen amounts to some kind of moral fault. But that would only be true in a Deterministic universe, one in which "the will of God," and "what humans choose to do" are identical. But I'm not a Determinist, and this isn't a Deterministic world.

Needless to say, your whole case rests on an objectively unjustified belief in the existence of a creating and sustaining god

Au contraire: very needful to say, with your gratuitous phrase "objectively unjustified" to be contested still.

- the absence of evidence for the existence, nature and predilections of which makes such belief irrational.

Let me ask you about this: are you claiming "Peter Holmes has no evidence of God," or are you trying to claim, "Nobody ever can have have evidence of God?" Which of those two are you asserting?

[Dubious]

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.

But I haven't. Show me where I have! Rendering a fact does not require any moral inferences even if it applies to moral deficiencies. That's the reason for the statement repeated twice Truth isn't moral. It could be described as thoroughly objective WITHOUT any moral implications.

Also the logic in all of your argmentation is totally skewed since they attempt to juxtapose and prove the superiority of biblical fiat morality over secular common law morality which can ONLY be done by employing a host of fallacies the prime one being the "A Priori Argument", a precise description and summary of your method of argumentation.

In case you're not familiar with it, it goes like this...

The A Priori Argument (also, Rationalization; Dogmatism, Proof Texting.): A corrupt argument from logos, starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. Certain ideologues and religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary method of "reasoning" and some are even honest enough to say so. E.g., since we know there is no such thing as "evolution," a prime duty of believers is to look for ways to explain away growing evidence, such as is found in DNA, that might suggest otherwise.

So there you are! All of your posts from first to last defending theism or even more crudely, claiming its moral superiority over the secular is summarized in a single logical fallacy, the only difference, you never were or ever will be honest enough to admit it. That much you've proven beyond reasonable doubt many, many posts ago.

The one thing which amounts to any logic in your presentations which you are unaware of or won't admit to, is that there are no other logical alternatives except to employ large scale fallacies if you wish to provide your thesis with a measure of credibility...which obviously hasn't worked except for those whose minds have been worked-over by a badly organized holy book.

In short, if you wish to give credence to illogical arguments it can only be accomplished by either avoiding all "logical" counter arguments, claiming you haven't received any, or by intentionally subverting its meaning so that you can easily dismiss it...all of which you have prolifically done over & over again. Even a slow brain isn't immune in eventually acknowledging the fallacies and subterfuges employed to uphold the theistic purity of your system at the expense of the more messy secular kind which doesn't depend on being "educated" by the fiat commands of some human engineered higher power.

Another major error is thinking that Hume, who you mention many times, could conceivably condone any part of your spurious methodology, transparent even to those uninitiated in the alphabet soup of logical fallacies!

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Which "majority," and how do we know when the "majority" is actually right? In Non-Theist thought, we never do -- for no standard exists. We cannot establish when the "majority" is right and when it's wrong, or even IF majority opinion is related to rightness at all.

I was referring the majority in the world.
There is no majority consensus that condone made 'genocide' legal in any country.
All cases of known genocides [as defined conventionally] has been take to national courts and international courts where the perpetrators are charged as guilty and punished for committing genocides.
The above confirm people who commit genocides are not thinking with the right-thinking in reference to the consensus of the majority.

At present there is no absolute definition for what is 'right'.
I agree what is 'right' must be grounded objectively and need to be argued for.

My point is the persecution of those who have committed genocides via majority consensus is driven by an inherent moral drive based on some inherent rightness.
This is why I am proposing we must uncover this implicit inherent natural standards and make them explicitly.

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?

Both "greatest" and "good" are undefined terms there. What makes something "good," and what makes it the "greatest" kind of good? You can't know.

You said that it was whatever the majority believes. The majority in Saudi is Islamic. You have already said, though, that you don't think this "majority" is right. Why not? Then what is "good" for them might be the subjugating of all women, or the killing of minority homosexuals. On what basis do you, as a Non-Theist, judge their actions?

You see the problem with any such answer, I'm sure.

I was not referring to local majority but universal majority of the people of the world.
I have discussed how to ground what is right above and how it is inferred from empirical actions of the majority, i.e. persecution of those who commit genocides.

It is obvious genocides [intrinsic to its definition] is the greatest of all evil acts known to humans at present. This 'greatest' is measured by the number of people killed within a purpose and specified time. The Holocaust involved 6 million Jews, and other genocides killed hundred of thousand in comparison to what is termed a mass-murder of 100s or in 10s by serial killers.

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].

Please do. I have only seen you define it as something like the above (majoritarianism), which is clearly not a defensible answer. If you have a defensible definition of evil, it would help us a great deal.

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.

This isn't defensible. Once again, your key terms are undefined, and you expect us to take them for granted. You don't define "net-negative," or "well-being," and you don't tell us anything about how evil is defined when the interests of "the individual" are not the same as those of "humanity." So you're right to say "they need some explanation."

It was not my intent to "lie," as you put it. I couldn't recognize these vague statements as the sort of actual "definition" upon which a rational person would wish to stand without better explanation than I have seen so far. But you are technically correct: if inadequate "definitions" are included, then you have indeed made a try at explaining what evil is -- perhaps just not with any degree of success, apparently. But I trust you'll supply the missing pieces.

From the above you cannot accuse me of not having defined 'evil'.
Therein I qualified the bolded 'well-being' is too complex to discuss.
If you are so ignorant and blurr of the popular term 'well-being' then read this to get an idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being
1 Multiple factors
2 Philosophical approaches
3 Scientific approaches
4 Models

• 4.1 Diener: tripartite model of subjective well-being
  4.2 Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being
  4.3 Corey Keyes: flourishing
  4.4 Seligman: positive psychology
  • 4.4.1 Three paths to happiness
    4.4.2 PERMA-theory

5 Global studies

As for 'net-negative' it meant the net-results of negative over any positive effects.
I could easily have just state 'negative' without qualifications.
But thinking wider, I am aware there are certain actions which are seemingly negative but they do have some positive effects.
For example certain drugs are associated with evil acts but one can argue in exceptional cases they have positive values, e.g. can cure certain diseases or even help the poor to earn a living, etc.
Thus it meant we need to consider the whole rather than one action only.

Point is when I get into a specific discussion of 'what is evil', I will go into the details.

My plus point is I am basing my definition on empirical evidences, i.e. empirical acts by humans.

If you personally don't like the term 'evil' I can use any other word to represent these empirical acts and trace them to their ultimate root causes.
Unfortunately the term 'evil' [secular] is now commonly used by many and tons of researches have been done based on this term and its definition in relation to the specific range of empirical human acts and thoughts.
Note this again;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am implying the idea of God has to do with the theists' mind which by definition is psychological.

I can see very well what you're implying. It's just not a good argument, as I have pointed out. You need a new implication.

Note there are two main types of religion, i.e. theistic [earlier] and non-theistic [later].
Non-theistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and others understood >2500 years ago, the underlying basis of theism with its negative side effects were a result of a generic inherent existential psychological drives.
These non-theistic religions deliberately avoided the idea of core in its core principle and deal directly with the psychological drives from the inherent existential crisis.

I have proven the idea of God is an impossibility, thus it is moot whether God exists or not.

From the reading of the respective holy texts and the behavior of theists re their religion, it is so obvious the root causes is psychological and the existential crisis [the existential fears re mortality, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, meaninglessness, etc.] that are relieved with a promise of salvation of eternal life in Heaven.

The discussion will continue less you want to give up.

I readily admit there is an existential crisis embedded deep in my psyche and I had relied on God to relieve the subliminally existential pains long time ago.

That is interesting. I appreciate your candour. But there isn't a rational justification for your "transference" of your personal experience onto all potential Theists. Just because that's how you experienced things does not mean that's the only way they can be experienced.

Note my justification above which in principle is 50% plus and another 25% of evidences and personal experiences to support my hypothesis.

Knowing that God is illusory and responsible in inspiring SOME theists to commit terrible evils and violence I had graduated from relying on God to other secular approaches to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma embedded in my psyche.

I get that. But it's not how things have come together for me, or for most of the Theists I know...and of them, I know more than most people will in a lifetime.

I get that.
I don't foresee the majority of theists will understand their internal psychology related to theism and its illusory God due to the desperation and psychological hold on their emotions.
Those who have a rational understanding of the irrationality of theism and convert out to non-theism without effective alternatives usually suffer terribly with depression, etc.
In any case, I will continue to discuss and critique theism truthfully with the hope theists will get an idea there is another perspective to their belief.

Why I critique theism overall [especially Islam] is due to the very glaring evil acts and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired by their God.

I have no objection to that claim. I see the same, especially in Islam, but also in some other systems. But I also see that Atheists killed 148 million people in the last century alone -- far more than have ever been killed by all religions combined. We must not forget that, if we remember nothing else.

So perhaps it's only where you live that Islam is the biggest problem: on a world scale, Atheism is a far more fatal belief.

I have countered the above as relying on hasty generalization. The above is very bad logic, presumably out of desperation?
It is critical that one look at the positive ideology of non-theists that killed many, e.g. they could be communists or Nazis who killed. So the focus should be on Nazism, fascism or communism not on atheism.

You cannot imply the following;

• Atheism kill 148 million
  Buddhism is atheism
  Therefore Buddhism killed 148 million.

See where your bad logic lead to?

This is why I am not an islamophobe

There's no such thing. A "phobia" is, by definition, an irrational and unfounded fear. Islam has abundantly proved itself as a rightful cause of fear, since it is the most fatal religion, accounting for half of all religion-based killings in history. But it's still far, far less fatal than Atheism has proved to be.

Note your bad logic re atheism = 148 million killed above.
Btw, don't you have a sense of shame or responsibility to push such rhetoric.
If you are dictator spewing that sort of logic/rhetoric, your blind followers could start killing innocent Buddhists because you have influenced them to to do it.
This is what happened with the Myanmar scenario where many Buddhist temples were destroyed and Buddhist killed by Muslims because they believe Buddhism per se condone the killing of the Rohingya Muslims.

It the same with SOME evil prone Christians committed lesser degrees of evil acts.

Catholicism is the most fatal (nominally) "Christian" creed, historically (though a fraction of the Islamic total, and an incredibly small fraction compared to the Atheists). But even the Catholic record has only been in open defiance of the example of Jesus Himself, who never fought wars, tortured people, or was violent even to enemies, and in fact taught that we ought to "pray for" and "do good to those who use you with spite." In contrast, of course, there is Mohammed, who was a warlord who killed his enemies with the sword and encouraged his followers to continue that practice to the present day. And on the Atheist side, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and all their homicidal kind.

It's important to give blame where blame is due; but also to give credit where credit is due. I'm sure you agree.

Note the Bible exhorts Christians to spread their religion and in that course the missionaries has committed terrible evils [+ good] along they way [kill local cultures and traditions, etc.] to spread Christianity.

Note here is one neuroscientific correlation to the idea of God in relation to temporal epilepsy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

I don't really have to say it, do I: "correlation is not causality": that's the most basic kind of axiom of scientific epistemology. The pointing to a couple of mentally-ill people does not explain the experience of those who are not mentally ill. And there are far, far too many Theists for us to suppose they're all mentally ill. So that explanation just doesn't work either.

I did not jump to claim causality.
That correlation is a strong clue for any one to raise a feasible hypothesis for confirmation.
It is not a couple of mentally-ill people, there are tons of research and evidences to support the point where the mental cases involve a realization of God.
There are loads of other reasons where people experience God and as agent of God, e.g. via drugs, hallucinogen, brain damage, various mental illnesses, etc.
The experiences of God can even be triggered via stimulation of magnetic waves in specific region of the brain.

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!

Note my point is a belief in God is driven by fear.

Again, this may be your experience, or it may be what you see around you, as you look at Muslims. I do not doubt your word, in their case.

It is obvious in the OT and NT, fear is the dominant emotion within the relation of a Christian and his God.

Neither observation ought to lead you to think it is the general experience of Theists. Again, psychologically speaking, this is just an example of "transference": suppositionally transposing your own local experience to others who, in this case, are not of the same kind.

'Transference' is a subliminal and subconscious mental activities, thus does not apply to my case.
I am basing my views on my own personal experiences of theism plus empirical evidence and arguments observed within theists and their beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My OP question is: what could make morality objective? And by 'objective' I mean 'relying on - or a matter of - facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'. For example, is the moral assertion 'slavery is wrong' a fact - a true factual assertion - or is it a value-judgement? The crucial point being that a value-judgement is neither true nor false in the way a factual assertion is true or false.

Some secular moral objectivists claim that slavery is morally wrong because (say) it harms people. But that assumes that harming people is morally wrong, which is a value-judgement. Push our reasons or justifications for our moral values and judgements back as far as we can - and we'll always arrive at another moral judgement. Whatever we claim about existence and nature - life is preferable to death, knowledge to ignorance, happiness to unhappiness, thriving to dwindling - and so on - is a value-judgement. And that's just the way it is. We build and repair our collective moral values and judgements on foundations and with materials of our own making - because we have no choice.

Why slavery is wrong from the secular view is not because it harms people absolutely.
Some slaves may be very well treated relatively.
Why slavery is wrong is due to the disrespect for a person's basic humanity dignity where no human can own another person as in Chattel Slavery.
Then one need to ask why, why, why till we arrive at some grounding which must be objective, i.e. not subjective opinions.

Some theistic moral objectivists claim that slavery is wrong because it's incompatible with the nature and will of a good god that both (of course) exists and created and sustains everything. But to say a god is good is to make a value-judgement, based on moral criteria. And to say those criteria are rooted in the god's nature and will is to say the god is good because the god is good, which is no justification at all, because it begs the question. Like its secular version, theistic moral objectivism has no foundation. (Of course, whether a god exists is a separate question and problem for theists.)

Yes, some theistic moral model do.
Such model do have foundation within the model, i.e. because a real God said so!
But from a meta-perspective this foundation is groundless since God is illusory.

The truth is that morality is subjective - which is just to say that moral assertions express value-judgements rather than factual claims. And to say that means there's no such thing as morality - that our moral values and judgements are empty, pointless or meaningless - is to misunderstand the nature of morality in the first place.

Morality is a very loose term.
So the practicality of the idea of morality and ethics will depend how we define them within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
It is inherent within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that there must [imperative] be objective standards for it to work.
In this case we need to establish the most optimal objective moral laws for the system's processes to work on its input and output.

The Framework and System of Morality and Ethics must be at least be feasible in theory before it is implemented in practice.

I had claimed there is already an implied Framework and System of Morality and Ethics at work as an invisible hand [not god's] within the collective psyche of humanity.
It is a matter of making its principles and processes explicitly like how we uncover gravity.

[uwot]

I defined objectivity as 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions' right at the start of my OPs,

In that case, not even science is "objective," since it relies on judgments...and also on guesses, hypotheses, interpretations of data, and the personal integrity of those performing, analyzing and publishing scientific papers. So there would be no such thing as an "objective" fact in the empirical world, if we take your definition.

All of the above are things that have to be considered, but where you are mistaken is in asserting that science is not objective "since it relies on judgements". 'Nullius in verba'-Take no one's word for it' is the motto the Royal Society of London adopted in the 17th century, because for 2000 years, people had been taking Aristotle's word for it. He was wrong and science learnt its lesson and has not relied on judgements ever since. Scientists are not a special breed and can be as vain, roguish and batshit bonkers as the rest of us and will have a range of guesses, hypotheses and interpretations that reflect that; but it is the data that is the source of that speculation which science relies on, and that data is objective. Anybody is free to interpret the data as they wish. Some people will analyse the data in such a way that they will find patterns of behaviour that, when others look, they will see the same pattern. Everyone knows that if you drop something, it falls; if you're Galileo, you measure lots of falls and discover that on Earth falling things accelerate at 9.8mss. If you're Newton, you generalise that for any bodies and discover a law of nature.

However, it depends what you take for "facts," too.

Indeed. It is a fact that falling things accelerate at 9.8mss.

I have argued consistently that ontology precedes ethics -- meaning that until we settle what are the basic "facts" in play, and in particular the existence or non-existence of the Creator and Judge of morality...

The existence or otherwise of a creator is not a fact in the scientific sense: you can't drop god and see how fast it accelerates. There is no objective data that favours any particular guess, hypothesis, interpretation or god over any other...

...we won't have a suitable picture of what an "objective" morality would look like.

...that being so, any morality is a reflection of the attitude of the person espousing it. So for instance, someone who thinks they are right and should be listened to will typically espouse a god who is right and should be listened to.