What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

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

Is this person a nut?

So you are testing if they think like you
Which means you think you are “less nutty” than God-believers.

Why not ask “Are you a nut?”

[TimeSeeker]

And for the record - the way I answer the question “Do you believe in God?” Is in a way to serve my own utility. So now we are both dancing around each other!

If I am speaking to a theist - I say yes. And I blend in Same with atheists. I will tell you what you want to hear to make you feel at ease.

It is just a language game. And if you learn to translate between languages - you can be part of both in-groups. Which is perfect when you need help from other humans. Or build bridges

[uwot]

Why not ask “Are you a nut?”

Very well. Are you a nut?

[TimeSeeker]

Why not ask “Are you a nut?”

Very well. Are you a nut?

What do you want to hear to make you feel at ease? (see my post above for context)

[uwot]

...if you learn to translate between languages - you can be part of both in-groups. Which is perfect when you need help from other humans. Or build bridges

Fair enough. I could pretend that I am always true to my beliefs, but you would be right to be sceptical.

[TimeSeeker]

...if you learn to translate between languages - you can be part of both in-groups. Which is perfect when you need help from other humans. Or build bridges

Fair enough. I could pretend that I am always true to my beliefs, but you would be right to be sceptical.

Hanlon’s razor applies. People are ignorant not malicious.

They don’t know they don’t know. And their assumed and incomplete knowledge leads to contingencies (which they happily ignore).

Rorty’s Final vocabulary.

You could say I am an ironist more than a skeptic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

At present the average and the majority are compelled subliminally by evolutionary forces to do whatever it takes to sustain and preserve the human species. The majority are not conscious of the direction of these natural forces that are aligned to the preservation of the human species.

Thus there is this implied strategy of "large numbers" [adaptive] where as long as each individual is compelled to comply, then the possibility of the preservation of the species is greater but not guaranteed since it has its cons within limited resources on Earth.

Since there is no guarantee, the dinosaurs and previous extinct species did not last when there are exceptional catastrophe that outweigh the strategy and strength of 'large numbers'.

But human beings are endowed with self-consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, reasoning power, wisdom, morality, philosophy to avoid blind reliance on large numbers but rather strive to preserve the human species with an optimal number in relation to resources available and other strategies [e.g. how to deflect any 'rogue' comet heading towards Earth].

It is with these advance faculties that humanity should strive to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics driven by sound objective moral principles to sustain and maintain the preservation of the human species. The question is how?

[uwot]

Hanlon’s razor applies. People are ignorant not malicious.

Well, that's pretty much what Socrates believed. When he was tried, he pissed of the jury so much that more people thought he should be sentenced to death than had found him guilty.

They don’t know they don’t know. And their assumed and incomplete knowledge leads to contingencies (which they happily ignore).

You could say I am an ironist more than a skeptic.

Tell me about irony.

[TimeSeeker]

At present the average and the majority are compelled subliminally by evolutionary forces to do whatever it takes to sustain and preserve the human species. The majority are not conscious of the direction of these natural forces that are aligned to the preservation of the human species.

This is a DEADLY error in reasoning. This is the error in reasoning the majority of humans commit! You have mistaken evolution (natural selection) for our friend. It is not.

The "natural forces" are absolutely NOT aligned with the preservation of the human species. 99.999% of all species which walked the Earth are now extinct. The only function of 'natural selection' is to randomly (entropy!) wipe out some suckers from time to time. It is purely coincidental, a statistical anomaly (luck!) that what we have survived this long.

It is the deadliest of mistakes! Absence of evidence (human extinction) is not evidence of absence. It's coming. Just wait and hope "natural forces" will preserve us.

[TimeSeeker]

Tell me about irony.

Just in case that was a request and not an ironic sigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

[Peter Holmes]

As I pointed out, atheism isn't a worldview any more than rejecting belief in fairies is a worldview. Why didn't you quote or address that?

I did. I told you you weren't correct.

Atheism has no 'real implications'

It has one affirmative claim: that there is "no God." To that claim, it has no entitlement. It offers no evidence. It's just an empty assertion. But it has that one ontological claim...namely, that our universe does not have a Supreme Being in it.

As for further implications, it does have some. You've identified one yourself: if there's no God, there's no such thing as an objective morality either. Of course, that also turns the existence of any subjective morality into a triviality as well, so there's an additional implication.

Another implication is the meaninglessness of existence. The universe itself is an uncaused cosmic accident. It races toward heat death. Meanwhile, entropy will get all of us much sooner. And it will all mean nothing.

So lots of implications, really. But it would take a very brave Atheist to face them, so many prefer to stop well short of thinking all that through. And in a sense, I can't blame them. It's pretty bleak.

But since your argument rests on the claim that a god's existence could make morality objective, you have to show why that is true.

I have done so. I have said that "the character of God" and "moral" are two terms for the same thing, just as "Peter" and "Mr. Holmes" are. But you haven't liked the answer I've given, even though it's the right one.

I can't help you further with that, because that's the end of the trail. The buck stops there.

1 Now that you've claimed - for the first time directly - that rejecting belief in a god or fairies constitutes a worldview, can you show why? I know you want it to be, because you want a straw man to attack. But without evidence or sound argument, we can securely dismiss your claim.

2 Tedious as it is to have to clarify this yet again, atheism is the rejection of the claim 'there is a god', to which theists 'have no entitlement' - as you so strangely put it. But to reject a claim is not to make a counter-claim. I don't claim 'there is no god', because, like you, I can see no way to meet the burden of proof for that claim - or the claim that there are no fairies, and so on. (I assume you don't claim there are no fairies.) The burden of proof is with theists, not with atheists. The buck stops with you.

3 The argument that, if there's no god, there's no meaning or purpose to life and the universe - so there is a god - is a fallacious appeal to consequences and a non sequitur. But you keep plugging it regardless.

4 Your misrepresentation of my argument on morality is patently dishonest, and I hope others reading this can see your dishonesty out in the open.

'As for further implications, it does have some. You've identified one yourself: if there's no God, there's no such thing as an objective morality either. Of course, that also turns the existence of any subjective morality into a triviality as well, so there's an additional implication.'

This your claim, not mine. My argument is that morality can't be objective, so that the existence of a god is irrelevant in this discussion. And you know damn well it is.

5 As I pointed out earlier, to justify the claim that a god (or anyone) is good (or 'moral') by appealing to their goodness (their 'moral' nature) is to provide no justification whatsoever. As usual, your advocacy of logic and sound argument disappears when it suits you.

Please answer these questions.

1 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?

2 Why do you believe your god is good? Do you have a reason that doesn't beg the question? (And are you aware that question-begging is fallacious?)

[TimeSeeker]

I'm newly disgusted by your intellectual dishonesty and moral turpitude.

Hanlon's Razor

I am 'disgusted' by your ignorance too, but:
1. You think you are right (morally AND epistemically)
2. You aren't transparent with your own uncertainties e.g what evidence you require from me to have your mind changed. You don't practice what you preach - intellectual honesty.
3. You are on a thread being skeptical of 'objective morality' and you accuse him of 'moral turptitude'. Performative contradiction much?

It's difficult to interact with people like you. That is - people who lack the ability to introspect and self-correct.
State your religion up front, so that others can decide whether they want to interact with you or not.

I have put you down to some nomination of objectivist.

Q.E.D What evidence would convince you to reject the very notion/conception of 'objectivity' as you currently use it and understand it? What would make you give up your religion?

[Peter Holmes]

I'm newly disgusted by your intellectual dishonesty and moral turpitude.

Hanlon's Razor

I am 'disgusted' by your ignorance too, but:
1. You think you are right (morally AND epistemically)
2. You aren't transparent with your own uncertainties e.g what evidence you require from me to have your mind changed. You don't practice what you preach - intellectual honesty.
3. You are on a thread being skeptical of 'objective morality' and you accuse him of 'moral turptitude'. Performative contradiction much?

It's difficult to interact with people like you. That is - people who lack the ability to introspect and self-correct.
State your religion up front, so that others can decide whether they want to interact with you or not.

I have put you down to some nomination of objectivist.

Q.E.D What evidence would convince you to reject the very notion/conception of 'objectivity' as you currently use it and understand it? What would make you give up your religion?

What are you on about? After a brief window of clarity and good sense, the fog seems to have closed in again. I have better uses for my time.

[TimeSeeker]

I have put you down to some nomination of objectivist.

Q.E.D What evidence would convince you to reject the very notion/conception of 'objectivity' as you currently use it and understand it? What would make you give up your religion?

What are you on about? After a brief window of clarity and good sense, the fog seems to have closed in again. I have better uses for my time.

There you go again.

Deluding yourself that you have privileged access to “clarity” and “good sense”. Is there ever so slight of a chance that you are making a mistake?

I shall leave you with the thought experiment: Imagine that you and I are the only two people in the universe. And we disagree.
Which one of us has access to the 'objective truth'?
Which one of us has access to 'clarity' and 'good sense'?
Which one of us is 'right' and which one of us is 'wrong'?

How do WE settle that?

In computer science this is the Leader Election problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_election
Since we haven't AGREED how to solve it, yet you are still appealing to 'right' and 'wrong' - then you are necessarily appealing to some authority!
The 'laws' of classical logic most likely: non-contradiction.

Contradictions can and DO exist. I contradict myself all the time and nothing bad happens.

Contradictions are caused by making positive claims from incomplete knowledge! Since complete knowledge is impossible (2nd law of thermodynamics - Maxwell's demon) then contradictions are a LAW OF PHYSICS to HUMANS. I sure have greater respect for physics than I do for Aristotle!

To hold HUMANS accountable to non-contradiction is about as intelligent as blaming you for being unable to levitate.

So as far as I am concerned - you have about as much 'clarity' and 'good sense' as any other theist.

[Peter Holmes]

I have put you down to some nomination of objectivist.

Q.E.D What evidence would convince you to reject the very notion/conception of 'objectivity' as you currently use it and understand it? What would make you give up your religion?

What are you on about? After a brief window of clarity and good sense, the fog seems to have closed in again. I have better uses for my time.

There you go again.

Deluding yourself that you have privileged access to “clarity” and “good sense”. Is there ever so slight of a chance that you are making a mistake?

I shall leave you with the thought experiment: Imagine that you and I are the only two people in the universe.
Which one of us has access to the 'objective truth'?
Which one of us has access to 'clarity' and 'good sense'?
Which one of us is 'right' and which one of us is 'wrong'?

How do WE settle that?

In computer science this is the Leader Election problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_election
Since we haven't AGREED how to solve it, yet you are still appealing to 'right' and 'wrong' - then you are necessarily appealing to some authority!
The 'laws' of classical logic most likely: non-contradiction.

Contradictions can and DO exist. I contradict myself all the time and nothing bad happens.

Contradictions are caused by making positive claims from incomplete knowledge! Since complete knowledge is impossible (2nd law of thermodynamics - Maxwell's demon) then contradictions are a LAW OF PHYSICS to HUMANS. I sure have greater respect for physics than I do for Aristotle!

To hold HUMANS accountable to non-contradiction is about as intelligent as blaming you for being unable to levitate.

So as far as I am concerned - you have about as much 'clarity' and 'good sense' as any other theist.

Wires crossed, perhaps. I'm an atheist.

But anyway, my OP question is rhetorical, because I think moral assertions express value-judgements rather than factual claims - so morality can't be objective, full stop. (The god question is irrelevant.) In a nutshell, where do you stand on that? I can't work it out.

I get the impression we differ over the possibility of knowledge of reality expressed by means of true factual assertions - the possibility of objectivity. If you think such things are impossible, I think you're wrong - and that our communication here belies your denial.