What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker

I'm struggling with what you're getting at, so I apologise for being slow to address it. I have some prelim questions - and sorry if they're stupid.

Do I detect Frege's baleful influence? The illusion of a non-linguistic language?

Do you agree that a meta-language is just another language?

And do you agree that logic deals with language, not reality?

And do you agree that a fact is nothing more than a linguistic expression?

And do you think numbers are real things like eggs?

It is OK. I come from a very different background from the norm.

I have no philosophical influence as such. I have acquired my way of thinking through praxis (applied statistics, information theory, computer science, physics, decision theory, economics, systems and complexity theory etc.) and have found that I spend far too much time around people who speak my language and so I may have developed my own English dialect.

Having read a number of philosophers I feel like they bring nothing new to the table of empiricism and I think their tools (language) are very limited. My views on language are closest to that of Rorty. People evolve vocabularies to serve their purpose. All vocabularies are equally true - for the particular purpose they serve. What is my purpose? Navigating and managing complexity.

And so the distinction of “real vs not real” is of no use to a me (or any physicist). This place I find myself in (real or not!) - I am trying to understand how it works as best as I can. Using all the tools available to me.

Yes logic (logos) is language. But not all languages are equal. And yet when describing reality language is all we have.

And in particular - when it comes to describing (and understanding) system dynamics, complexity and multi-dimensional entropic entities English is simply not good enough a tool.

It is 4th or 5th order logic at best.

You need high-order logic. Temporal type theory?

And when the weirdness of the universe doesn’t like to fit into well-structured formalisms ten raw Mathematics helps too.

Without complex, precise high-dimensional language like Mathematics - I don’t think it is possible to develop conception or intuition of ontology, but especially - no conception of behaviorism and complexity.

Are eggs like numbers? No.

Try and understand the annual global production/consumption/import/export of eggs over the last 50 years without numbers....

Language affects your thinking. English (when used for purposes other than human-to-human communication) limits it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The difference is that Christian morality can be rationally grounded, meaning it can explain the "why" of its existence. But there isn't even the potential, rationally speaking, for any Atheist morality to be grounded. Common Law without any legitimative grounds is no longer a law or common at all. It's just a historical fiction waiting to be disregarded. So the "lesser" morality is the ungrounded one.

Christianity rationally grounded???

Christianity's theological moral model is based on the claim that God exists and it is moral because God says so.
But then God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.
Thus the whole ground of Christianity's theological moral model crumbled.

Whilst Christianity's theological moral model albeit grounded on the illusory God do work in the past and present circumstances, it has its negative baggage of condoning evil acts and hindering the progress of humanity to a great extent.

In addition the limited theological moral model is based on 'immutable' and dogmatic theological doctrines that cannot be changed with changing times.

True, at present there are no effective secular moral system established in practice. However there is a potential for team-humanity to establish a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [Kantian guided] in the future that is driven by objective moral principles and laws that are grounded based on empirical evidences.

As I had highlighted there are already evidence of such a system progressing implicitly and resulting in the slow moving results of moral advancement since thousands of years ago. Note the topic of 'chattel slavery' and other moral progresses discussed.
So the task of humanity is to make the above inherent moral system explicit and expedite the moral progress objectively.

[Peter Holmes]

I wrote the following:

'The rules or standards within a system or model have no truth-value - they're simply normative. To call them 'objective', which here means 'factual', is tautologous, and so vacuous.'

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

You got the wrong idea that 'objective' must be factual.
That the model 1 + 1 = 2 is objective by reason, not by normally proven facts [normal empirical based]. It is the same for other mathematical axioms.
But nonetheless, note whatever is objective [empirical or by reason] is ultimately subjective fundamentally, i.e. inter-subjective.
So, we can derived objective moral laws based on reason [not directly a posteriori] which ultimately must be traced to the empirical [a priori].

There is nothing that is absolutely objective, i.e. exists independently of human [who are subjects] conditions.

I think you're mistaken on both counts.

A definition of 'objective' is: 'adjective (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.'

Facts are at the heart of objectivity. To be objective is to rely on facts - true factual assertions.

Then the question is: what is a true factual assertion - a fact? And I take it to be an assertion about a feature of reality that may not be or have been the case. A factual assertion is one with a truth-value - an assertion that can be true or false. And we happen to call the true ones facts.

The assertion '1+1+2' can't be false, because it isn't factual. It doesn't make a claim about a feature of reality that may not be the case. And since 'objective' does indeed mean 'factual', it's a mistake to call mathematical and logical assertions 'objective'.

As for the 'ultimate' or 'fundamental' subjectivity of what we call objectivity - I think that's a sophistry that reinforces theistic special pleading for the divine dispensation to dissolve the fact-value barrier: a god's (moral) opinions are (by fiat) facts.

You are trying to be rhetorical.
You have introduced the dictionary meaning of objectivity, but since we are in a philosophy forum, we need a philosophical definition and perspective to what is objectivity.

I understand and agree to the common proposition, facts equal objectivity but the concept of objectivity is not totally dependent on facts.

I suggest you read the following to understand there are various views on the issue;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
-wiki

Re the above, mathematical truths are objective [philosophical] and they are not facts per se but are a foundation to facts that rely on mathematics.

It would be from this more refined perspective that we will establish objective moral principles as abstracted from empirical evidences.
"Establish' mean humanity must work on it since there are no ontological pre-existing objective moral principles like those forced upon theists by a God [illusory].

I'm not 'trying to be rhetorical'. I'm explaining what we mean by the words 'objective' and 'objectivity', which is what a dictionary definition tries to do. To say it doesn't do it accurately or subtly enough - with enough nuance - seems to suggest there is some abstract thing - let's imagine it means something to say it's a 'concept' - which we call 'objectivity' and which we can more or less inaccurately describe - and that 'philosophy' describes it more accurately - or with more refinement - than a dictionary does or can.

But this is the ancient metaphysical delusion at work - as it is in the strange idea that 'good', 'bad', 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are somehow (if only abstractly) things which can therefore be real properties - factual predicates in descriptions of people, things and actions. Words mean what we use them to mean, and can mean nothing else. To assert or deny that so-called abstract things such as objectivity exist is to mistake an abstract noun for a thing that therefore may or may not exist. (Plato's Socrates on 'the good'' or 'justice'.) We've been mired in this delusion for centuries.

End of digression. Point is, your prescription - consistently with what I understand of your argument - remains confused:

It would be from this more refined perspective that we will establish objective moral principles as abstracted from empirical evidences.
"Establish' mean humanity must work on it since there are no ontological pre-existing objective moral principles like those forced upon theists by a God [illusory].

The moral principles we've established and are developing are value-judgements - decisions about what SHOULD BE the case - and can't be facts about what IS the case. So moral principles can't be objective - matters of fact independent of opinion, individual or collective.

Some theists jump up and down screaming 'nihilism...moral anarchy...', because they're determined to peddle their 'no god = no morality, god = objective morality' nonsense. But they misunderstand objectivity - and the nature of morality. Recognising the necessary subjectivity of moral value-judgements is the key to demolishing theistic moral objectivism and the derived argument for the existence of a god.

[TimeSeeker]

No god == no morality is true though. Meaning that any social norms (moral rules) we wish to enforce - we have to invent an authority to enforce them.

Gods are man-made authorities after all. Institutions.

[Peter Holmes]

No god == no morality is true though. Meaning that any social norms (moral rules) we wish to enforce - we have to invent an authority to enforce them.

Gods are man-made authorities after all. Institutions.

I disagree. You're identifying morality with socially imposed rules - but these are different things.

A moral assertion expresses a value-judgement, such as slavery is wrong. There's no suggestion of authority, imposition, or enforcement in the judgement itself.

You're right that gods are man-made (but in this case fictional) authorities - and that what we actually do is establish social norms, sometimes enforced by real authorities: governments and laws. But it's not true that, without those institutions, there would or could be no moral judgements and so no morality.

The mistake some theist objectivists make is to think that, without an authority to guarantee the 'truth' of moral rightness or wrongness, we can never know what is morally right or wrong - and can never justifiably impose a judgement on others. So they assume there is a 'truth' to be known which isn't a matter of opinion - an assumption they can never justify without begging the question.

They simply claim the assertion slavery is wrong is a fact, rather than what it patently is: a value-judgement. And then they compound the mistake by claiming that only a god can guarantee the truth of a fact - which completely misrepresents what a fact is, and with it the nature of objectivity.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

The difference is that Christian morality can be rationally grounded, meaning it can explain the "why" of its existence. But there isn't even the potential, rationally speaking, for any Atheist morality to be grounded. Common Law without any legitimative grounds is no longer a law or common at all. It's just a historical fiction waiting to be disregarded. So the "lesser" morality is the ungrounded one.

I agree that Christian morality is rational morality. Christian morality is grounded in a view of human nature as a nature that might be improved upon by means of Christian morality.

There is no need to legitimate Christian morality by means of theology, except insofar as one's worldview is that reality is ordered not chaotic. Ordered reality includes that living creatures a) seek happiness and b) that happiness for human beings is inseparable from universal happiness.

Immanuel's error is to put theology before morality. It's important for the continuance of life on Earth that Christianity and its morality is modernised so as to stand without any reliance upon outdated superstitions or creeds.

[TimeSeeker]

I disagree. You're identifying morality with socially imposed rules - but these are different things.

A moral assertion expresses a value-judgement, such as slavery is wrong. There's no suggestion of authority, imposition, or enforcement in the judgement itself.

I am not so sure. The words are different - the phenomenology is not. If vegans had the political power to enforce their opinions (“eating eggs is wrong”) in law - then what is the difference?

If there were no consequences for murder, than how are you going to convince me that I shouldn’t do it beyond your stern verbal disapproving opinion?

without those institutions, there would or could be no moral judgements and so no morality.

I never said that. I said that without consensus/authority/unity there are 7.5 billion different moral judgments.

Will to power.

an assumption they can never justify without begging the question.

That is not a problem specific to moral assertions. The regress problem affects all of philosophy.

Not that it matters. You can’t bridge the is-ought gap. Except by inventing authority /objectivity - same difference. Both concepts were “oughts” at some point in the past until we recognised them by consensus.

[Immanuel Can]

Then you think value-laden pejoratives are objectively true. You've used moral language, and treated it as objective. You've now destroyed your own theory.

I know you would like to think so...[/quote]
You misunderstand my claim. It's not that I would "like to think" anything about this. It's that from an impartial, rational perspective, your supposition of objective moral values in regard to pejoratives defeats your claim that you don't believe values can be objective. I'm appealing to the logic of your own position, not to my personal preferences.

That has nothing to do with my "liking" it or not. It's just how it is.

I also noticed you haven't made any further mention of the A Priori Argument fallacy! Could it be there really is such a thing!

I'm saving my comments for points I regard worth making. You've got the appropriate scholarly sources, and you prefer your own view. What can be said? Nothing further, I would say.

So is there any way you can explain the "why" that would ground theistic morality vis-a-vis its secular neighbor from which it is supposedly derived??

Your history is in error here. There are no "secular" ancient societies that we have ever discovered. They're all religious, in one form or another. And so whatever human morality is thought to be, it certainly can't be "secular." Secularism itself is actually derived from Christian roots. Here's a secular source that will tell you that, in fact. (https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secul ... explained/)

[Immanuel Can]

Hey.. there is something wrong here...

Note this glaring post here,

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The argument and proof;

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

Yes, I see exactly what's "wrong here." It's obvious now.

It's that we're going round and round in a cognitive loop. You're convinced that the psychological explanation is the right one, and not a rational objection anyone could offer will seemingly change your mind. Despite the fact that all of this has been shown to be more full of holes than Swiss cheese, you're still referring to it as if it's an answer.

Okay. I guess that's that.

Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

So you blow by everything the Bible says about love, to get to a verse that uses the word "fear," and this, then becomes the total sum of what the Bible teaches about motivation, in your mind?

Wow. Talk about selective reading!

You've missed all the good stuff. But I can help out.

How about these:

"By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us." (1 John 4:17-19)

"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful." (Jn. 14:27)

You will also find that "fear" is used in multiple senses, in the Bible: for the legitimate fear of danger, the illegitimate fear of things that won't happen, for the righteous reverence (translated "fear") that people ought to have for God, and for the things the unrighteous lack, a sensible anticipation ("fear") of being judged if they do not repent. In the passage you picked, the word is being used for the third of these, not for the first, second or fourth. But you find the fourth in both Isaiah, and in Romans 3, in an extended description of what's wrong with people who have no righteous "fear" of God:

“There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And the path of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

So "fear" is quite a good thing to have, when fear is warranted. And lack of it can be terribly foolish. But the over-riding theme, the thing that the Bible says banishes bad "fear" is the love of God. And while the word "love" appears over 230 times in the New Testament, the word "fear," even including its positive forms, appears a total of only about 90.

So on preponderance of the evidence, you'd have to say that whatever motivation we attribute to "fears" of all kinds, "love" trumps them all by more than twice.

The upshot of the evidence is this: that if your "psychological" explanation is accurate, you'd certainly have to say that the overriding motivation of Christians was "love," not "fear."

The above implied there is 'fear' to be overcome and God is giving that assurance the person's fear can be overcome via love and through a belief in God. So we are still dealing with psychology here.

Oy vey.

If persistence in the face of all reasoning and evidence is any kind of win, then I think I'll have to grant you that. But you really just have a singular perspective, one for which you will not recognize any possibility of falsification.

Given that, there's no more to be said. Have a nice day.

[Immanuel Can]

The difference is that Christian morality can be rationally grounded, meaning it can explain the "why" of its existence. But there isn't even the potential, rationally speaking, for any Atheist morality to be grounded. Common Law without any legitimative grounds is no longer a law or common at all. It's just a historical fiction waiting to be disregarded. So the "lesser" morality is the ungrounded one.

Christianity rationally grounded???

No...morality can be rationally grounded IF Christianity is true. That's my claim.

But then God is illusory and an impossibility to be real.

Let's see your rational justification for that claim. Why is God, in your view, an "impossibility to be real"?

(Note: your claim doesn't change anything about mine, of course, since I used "if" in my claim: thus, it doesn't require anybody's approval, or even the "if" condition to become a "because," in order to still be logically accurate.)

Whilst Christianity's theological moral model albeit grounded on the illusory God do work in the past and present circumstances, it has its negative baggage of condoning evil acts and hindering the progress of humanity to a great extent.

Phony history. You're acting like all the great artists, discoverers, scientists, physicians, and so on who have been Christians or Jews or other Theists have contributed nothing. Even today, your claim is obviously and verifiably wrong. But even science itself owes it's genesis to the Christian worldview. You should know about Whitehead's Hypothesis, for example, or about the fact that Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was a theologian and a devout Christian.

You're just so obviously wrong with that claim that I don't know what else to tell you.

Meanwhile, you continue to champion beliefs that have, verifiably and historically, left their followers in poverty and misery for millennia. I don't know how anybody can possibly be more wrong about the evidence, honestly.

However, clearly I can't change your mind at the moment. Have a nice day.

[TimeSeeker]

However, clearly I can't change your mind at the moment. Have a nice day.

On a scale of 0 to 100, how certain are you that you are trying to change the “right” mind.

On a scale of 0 to 100 how likely is it that it is your mind that requires changing?

[Dubious]

You misunderstand my claim. It's not that I would "like to think" anything about this. It's that from an impartial, rational perspective, your supposition of objective moral values in regard to pejoratives defeats your claim that you don't believe values can be objective. I'm appealing to the logic of your own position, not to my personal preferences.

To repeat objective moral values, as I already explained numerous times doesn't add up, there's no such thing, and therefore cannot be my supposition; but think what you like.

That you are a hypocrite, an intentional distorter of what others have actually said and been accused of many times, a liar and a coward proven once again in your reply, has nothing to do with moral values per se, only yours.

What I objectively, factually commented on is your complete lack of integrity in applying those values while sanctimoniously pretending you have them! The truth of that remains objective even while denouncing all of your practiced corruptions.

It's simple enough; truth need not be moral or claim moral authority to declaim against moral infringements. It's value lies in its "objectivity" which doesn't require any moral expediencies to function; such in fact would inhibit it.

I also noticed you haven't made any further mention of the A Priori Argument fallacy! Could it be there really is such a thing!

I'm saving my comments for points I regard worth making.

When proven wrong, this is what I'd expect as your fallback retort. As noted by many, your comments are generally unworthy of points others have made.

So is there any way you can explain the "why" that would ground theistic morality vis-a-vis its secular neighbor from which it is supposedly derived??

Your history is in error here. There are no "secular" ancient societies that we have ever discovered. They're all religious, in one form or another. And so whatever human morality is thought to be, it certainly can't be "secular." Secularism itself is actually derived from Christian roots. Here's a secular source that will tell you that, in fact. (https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secul ... explained/)

Thank you for the link. This part especially reminded me of you...

"Fundamentalism” only refers to extreme minority views about how to deal with secularity.

So, another improvised detour away from an explicitly stated question!

Once again show me where I said or even hinted that secular societies existed in ancient times?

Reading a single chapter on ancient history already tells you that secularity is a foreign concept in that period and even more so in the Middle Ages!

It's not my history that's in error; it's your duplicity which once again is self-revealing!

Based on your assertion that Christianity is rationally grounded it's only logical to ask what would ground it while the secular remains unsupported even as it "derives from it" according to you.

For most this translates to an oxymoron. If you have reasons why this is so why not announce them and, if not prove, at least give greater credence to the superiority of Christian morality??

Why not explain the dichotomy when asked instead of coming along with something which has no reference to the question or was it simply another ploy to avoid it?

[Immanuel Can]

You misunderstand my claim. It's not that I would "like to think" anything about this. It's that from an impartial, rational perspective, your supposition of objective moral values in regard to pejoratives defeats your claim that you don't believe values can be objective. I'm appealing to the logic of your own position, not to my personal preferences.

To repeat objective moral values, as I already explained numerous times doesn't add up, there's no such thing, and therefore cannot be my supposition; but think what you like.

It's not "what I think." It's that you use moral terms of condemnation (hypocrite, coward, etc.) and apparently expect us to receive them as objective. In other words, it's your own argument you've undermined by so doing.

That you are a hypocrite, an intentional distorter of what others have actually said and been accused of many times, a liar and a coward proven once again in your reply, has nothing to do with moral values per se, only yours.

According to your own claim that morality is not objective, these statements are not objectively true.

What I objectively, factually commented on is your complete lack of integrity in applying those values while sanctimoniously pretending you have them!

Why should that bother you...and why should anyone else care if it does? After all, you yourself have said that all this language of moral condemnation just isn't objectively true.

[uwot]

...morality can be rationally grounded IF Christianity is true. That's my claim.

All you are saying is:
Morality is the will of a hypothetical god.
Therefore, if that god exists, morality is that particular god's will.
So if you can prove that christianity is true, then you can ground your morality in a circular argument.

[Dubious]

It's not "what I think." It's that you use moral terms of condemnation (hypocrite, coward, etc.) and apparently expect us to receive them as objective. In other words, it's your own argument you've undermined by so doing.

Let's go to an extreme example because you refuse to acknowledge simple logic in so many of your assertions.

Would it be an objective statement, meaning a statement devoid of all personal subjective feelings, to say that someone who murders and rapes without conscience is morally deficient. If so, it's equally possible to pronounce objectively on any moral condition good or bad, extreme or not.

You appear to have a real problem with that.

According to your own claim that morality is not objective, these statements are not objectively true.

They are true as stated above if the description of you is true as relentlessly proven by you. Truth and objectivity does not preclude a verdict on the morals of a liar, hypocrite, coward including all the disgusting, debased behaviors religion has allowed itself to practice from the very beginning.

Also you refuse to give reasons why Christianity is rationally based while secular morality has no rational foundation.

Like most theists the only arguments left to you are hot-air assertions with no attempt to provide proof or a degree of credibility. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it as if your biblical god had spoken!

Either that or it's all just a bible bullshit game, there being an endless amount of the latter in the former to keep it burning a while longer...a feature you're certain to continue capitalizing on.