What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

I am perfectly happy to invent semantics and repurpose words on the fly. But I imagine you can’t keep up...

Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Cool! Whatever the purpose of you saying that was - I am sure it served it well.

Unless the purpose was to communicate information. In which case - we need consensus

You see. The notions of "objectivity" is incompatible with the notion of "distributed consensus". And since I find the latter much more useful, I am going to have to throw one of them away

[uwot]

This is hugely problematic because you've already made a number of assumptions...

It pre-supposes that you speak the same metaphysical/epistemic (mental?) language AND that you share vocabularies/taxonomies - which is an a whole lot of unvalidated assumptions.

I see. So what makes you think I could understand that assertion?

You understand the question because you ask it.

Ah. So should I assume that the reason you don't understand the question is because you didn't ask it?
Why would a pre-supposition of a common language preclude me from not doubting someone who affirms a belief in some god?

[TimeSeeker]

Ah. So should I assume that the reason you don't understand the question is because you didn't ask it?
Why would a pre-supposition of a common language preclude me from not doubting someone who affirms a belief in some god?

Because: do you believe in wingfrot?

Of course - we are going to end up going in circles here. Because you are already using your definition of 'belief' (which I understand, I think? Maybe I don't... But I do know that you treat belief separate from knowledge) which is different to the way I use those words.

And so now you've put the onus on me to translate between our languages. I am not sure that I can...

[Immanuel Can]

I am denigrating English and other informal languages. They are communication tools. That is it.

Not tools for describing reality.

So the statement you just made, in English, isn't an accurate description of reality? It isn't true?

I think I believe you.

By the time you parsed it....

You don't need to over-demonstrate. I said I believed you.

[TimeSeeker]

You don't need to over-demonstrate. I said I believed you.

And if you didn't ? What difference would it make and to whom?

[TimeSeeker]

Ah. So should I assume that the reason you don't understand the question is because you didn't ask it?
Why would a pre-supposition of a common language preclude me from not doubting someone who affirms a belief in some god?

I think there is a far simpler way to pose this: lets suppose that we have concluded our exchange. I "believe in God" - you accept that I "believe in god", but doubt that I do.

How would we mutually verify that we have the same conceptions of 'God' without external (to our minds) arbitration? How do we "checksum" the objects in our respective heads so that we can detect any transmission errors?

Checksum: a digit representing the sum of the correct digits in a piece of stored or transmitted digital data, against which later comparisons can be made to detect errors in the data.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded. The presence of "critics" has no effect on that, one way or the other: their approval would not make God exist if He did not, and would not make morality objective if it's not. But likewise, their disapproval cannot make God not-exist, and cannot make morality not-objective. In both cases, things are as they are, regardless of opinion, as I'm sure you know.

"IF" a big IF.
Yes, if God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded.
Such a God has to be an ontological God, i.e. absolute perfect.
In any case, it is only objective to those who believe God exists.

No. "Objective" things exist regardless of the perceptions of the perceiver. If you "objectively" have cancer, it will make no difference if you don't know you do.

If you have cancer, yes it may be objective but it is only objective subject to the doctor[s]' subjective interpretation within an intersubjective agreed definition as stipulated within some medical texts.

So note, what is supposedly 'objective' is always ultimately premise on the subject, i.e. deductively, subjective.

But the reality is;

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

This starts with an argument that has been subsequently thoroughly debunked. Anyone who reads that strand will see it has been. Any refusal to recognize that would merely be one further example of why "objective" does not depend on the approval of any particular percipient. Percipients can be wrong.

It is not any one who read but whether there are any convincing arguments to counter my arguments.
You have stated yourself, majority's consensus do not mean right or true.

IF there is any convincing argument I will accept that, but so far there are none.
If you think there is a convincing counter argument I suggest you open a specific thread to present it so it is glaring.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why does a god saying 'slavery is wrong' mean that slavery is wrong? After all, if the god said 'slavery is right', would that mean that slavery is right?

Here is a good point for a discussion of non-theistic moral objectivity.

In the Abrahamic religions [and other religions?] there is no outright condemnation and the abolishment of slavery. Rather the Bible and Quran mentioned slavery in such a way as to be either indifferent or indirectly condoning slavery. In such a case there is an element of subjectivity on the part of God.

On the other hand, humanity had proposed a maxim on the abolishment of slavery via a UN Convention.
Such a convention on slavery is 'objective' albeit based on intersubjective consensus.
That such a conventional on slavery had arisen implies humanity is striving to actualize the inherent objective moral principles within humanity itself which is seemingly better than the 'God-said-so' immutable morality on this issue.

From the above, whatever is claimed to be objective moral from a God [illusory and impossible] are most likely to be moral rules invented by a group of fallible men of inferior quality.

Humanity as a whole must strive for secular absolute moral principles that are fool proof.

[TimeSeeker]

Why does a god saying 'slavery is wrong' mean that slavery is wrong? After all, if the god said 'slavery is right', would that mean that slavery is right?

Here is a good point for a discussion of non-theistic moral objectivity.

Why tackle insignificant issues like slavery? What if the god said that our species should be exterminated?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why does a god saying 'slavery is wrong' mean that slavery is wrong? After all, if the god said 'slavery is right', would that mean that slavery is right?

Here is a good point for a discussion of non-theistic moral objectivity.

Why tackle insignificant issues like slavery? What if the god said that our species should be exterminated?

I was picking a very obvious example.
I could have picked up a whole load of human acts [which will be tedious] that has positive trends and put them on a continuum to extract a hypothesis that humanity is striving towards and aligning with some idealistic moral objectives.

I believe it is implied in the Quran, the world is a 'useless' and dirty place filled with the shits of unbelievers and the human species can be exterminated since regardless of whatever happen Muslims are assured of a place in Paradise with eternal life and virgins [eternally renewal after each penetration] as a bonus.
This is very possible given that WMDs [nukes and bio] are getting cheaper and easily available in the black-market.

On the other hand, the average human being is striving as a unit and group to survive at all costs to contribute to the preservation of the human species on the basis of large numbers.

[TimeSeeker]

Here is a good point for a discussion of non-theistic moral objectivity.

Why tackle insignificant issues like slavery? What if the god said that our species should be exterminated?

On the other hand, the average human being is striving as a unit and group to survive at all costs to contribute to the preservation of the human species on the basis of large numbers.

But two questions:
1. Are they doing it consciously e.g do they understand the “Why?”
2. Is “large numbers” a sufficient long-term strategy given what happened to the dinosaurs?

If we are to define a “believer in God” - I think somebody who answers “No” to both of the above would fit the bill

[uwot]

I think there is a far simpler way to pose this: lets suppose that we have concluded our exchange. I "believe in God" - you accept that I "believe in god", but doubt that I do.

How would we mutually verify that we have the same conceptions of 'God' without external (to our minds) arbitration? How do we "checksum" the objects in our respective heads so that we can detect any transmission errors?

I personally wouldn't bother. I suppose I see language in the same way that you see science, in that its primary function is to be 'useful'.

[TimeSeeker]

I think there is a far simpler way to pose this: lets suppose that we have concluded our exchange. I "believe in God" - you accept that I "believe in god", but doubt that I do.

How would we mutually verify that we have the same conceptions of 'God' without external (to our minds) arbitration? How do we "checksum" the objects in our respective heads so that we can detect any transmission errors?

I personally wouldn't bother. I suppose I see language in the same way that you see science, in that its primary function is to be 'useful'.

Right! I see language in exactly the same way!

But then what is your utility function?
What utility do you see in asking “Do you believe in god?”?

I suspect people use it as a (terrible!) litmus test for “Do you think like me?”. If you get the answer you expect to hear (yes OR no) then you have convinced yourself. Confirmation bias...

[TimeSeeker]

To accelerate the communication process - I see epistemology in exactly the same way! To be useful.

I am a poster child for constructivist epistemology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology ) and so it is difficult to come to consensus to people who believe in “objective truth”. Objectivity is a social construct!

Particularly when they think they are the ones privy to that “truth”. That is just an erudite way of saying “I am right and you are wrong”. That is - they actually believe in objective morality.

They performatively contradict their skepticism of objective morality. And then accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

[uwot]

What utility do you see in asking “Do you believe in god?”?

Is this person a nut?