What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your argument is: whatever people think is morally right or wrong is, in fact, objectively, independent from opinion, morally right or wrong.

Not exactly, no.

A sane man won't spend a lot of time wonderin' hmmm, me as a slave, is that a good fit?, he knows straight off the bat, without thinkin' about it, it's a lousy idea, a rotten deal, a bad thing and he'll reject it.

To be free is normal and natural to him; to be a slave is wrong and unnatural to him.

Sounds to me like an objective morality, a natural law.

Prove me wrong: show me a sane man who craves enslavement.

You won't find one in this Reality.

In Bizarro World, mebbe, but not in this world.

I'll go one further: give me an example, from any point in history, from any culture, where sane men actively sought to be enslaved cuz they believed they should be slaves.

One example will suffice to toss my idea in the shitter.

I'm sorry, but you aren't using the word 'objective' in the standard way, to mean 'independent from opinion'.

Your claim is: everyone is of the opinion that slavery is morally wrong, so slavery is morally wrong. To put it another way: if everyone is of the opinion that x is morally wrong, then x is morally wrong. And it follows that if everyone is of the opinion that x is not morally wrong, then x is not morally wrong. And earlier you agreed to that. The fact that you can't imagine such a situation is irrelevant. Your criterion for morality is 'what everyone thinks'.

And this has nothing to do with objectivity. Try this: if everyone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat. But if everyone thinks the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Your claim about slavery is as ridiculous as these claims about the shape of the earth. With the earth, there's something in reality that verifies or falsifies a claim as to its shape, so anyone's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It isn't a matter of opinion - it's objective.

So if morality were objective, then everyone's opinion about slavery would also be irrelevant. But you're saying everyone's opinion is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. This argument is a mess.

It may be a fact that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But that doesn't means it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong. That's an elementary logical error.

I believe you are wrong in not differentiating a moral fact from an empirical fact and other facts.
In Arithmetic, it is an objective fact, 1 + 1 = 2 i.e. objective.

As Henry Quirk had requested, show us a sane human who would want to be enslaved?
Just start asking with yourself [given you are sane], your spouse, children, relatives, kins, friends, and the rest of sane people [verified by DSM-V].

Thus it would be fact that everyone agree slavery is morally wrong, and from this, it is a moral-fact, slavery is morally wrong. There is no logical error in this.
Therefore "slavery is morally wrong" as reasoned is an absolute moral law within morality specifically and nowhere else.

Note there is no claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is a scientific fact, an empirical fact, an arithmetic fact, a legal fact, and economic fact, etc. but only that it is a justified moral fact.

[Skepdick]

Depends

On what?

2 > 1

If 1 is bad. 2 is worse than 1. 3 is worse than 2. 4 is worse than 3.......ALL is worst.

If you object to this, you need to provide a counter-example.

So what?

The "Earth's suffering" is mind projection.

[henry quirk]

you aren't using the word 'objective' in the standard way, to mean 'independent from opinion'.

Of course I am.


Your claim is: everyone is of the opinion that slavery is morally wrong, so slavery is morally wrong.

No, it isn't.

[Sculptor]

Extinction of humanity is probably going to happen at some point; sooner the better.

Does tomorrow work for you? We'll have the nukes ready - you can push the "GO!" button.

Duh.
The rest of the earth would also suffer. Dingbat

Not for long, and afterward nothing would care.

Other animal species are capable of caring.

[Sculptor]

Depends

On what?

2 > 1

If 1 is bad. 2 is worse than 1. 3 is worse than 2. 4 is worse than 3.......ALL is worst.

If you object to this, you need to provide a counter-example.

Your premise is not supported

So what?

The "Earth's suffering" is mind projection.

So what?

[Skepdick]

Your premise is not supported

It's not my premise. It was yours.

I just applied induction to it.

So what?

So you have your priorities all fucked up.

[RCSaunders]

The following is from an article by a well-known Theist in defense of one philosopher's mostly correct objective view of ethics:

The Ethics of Ayn Rand: Restatement

Actually, RC, we've got to differentiate between "objective" and "Objectivist." The former is a kind of synonym for "real," and the second is a school of thought represented by Ayn Rand. And they're not nearly the same thing.

John Piper

He's a Calvinist. I wouldn't be. He would argue for a kind of Determinism I would never argue for.

You might too, since you believe about all men, "the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them,” [Romans 2:15] If ethical principles are truly objective, it means any human being can discover them by using their mind [that would be the mind God gave them for you], which means they have no excuse.

Something like that. But Romans even says, in reference to the existence of God, that "God has made it plain to them..." So it's not just a process of ethical deduction, but includes thing like the evidence of creation and the actual revelation of God.

And it's in consequence of all that, that men are "without excuse."

Not sure what your point is. You've used a couple of labels, ["Calvinist," and, "Objectivist"] as though that explained why the argument can just be dismissed. You know what is wrong with that. "Oh, he's a Calvinist," or, "she's an Objectivist, so they cannot be right about anything," is both an ad hominem and a prejudice fallacy.

Though Ayn Rand named her philosophy, "Objectivism," what today goes by the name Objectivism [the ARI version, for example] is not Rand's philosophy at all, and her use of, "objective reason," would be exactly the same as yours or mine. As for Piper's Calvinism, what would that have to do with whether or not ethical principles can be determined objectively?

I think you have evaded the argument, which you did not address at all. And since you brought it up, the Calvinist view of predestination and unconditional election is exactly what the Bible teaches--one cannot claim to believe the Bible and deny the Calvinist view without, "explaining away," what the Bible says with some version of, "that's what it says, but that's not what it means."

[RCSaunders]

Other animal species are capable of caring.

Is that what they tell you?

Well, OK then. If all those animals care so much, they can do something about it, right?

Sorry, just pulling your leg. No creatures except human beings know there is a yesterday or a tomorrow and none of them are sitting around worrying about whether they will be here tomorrow or not. If there were no human beings no one would care and nothing would matter.

And how could or why would you care, if you weren't here?

If the entire planet were devoid of life, how would it matter and to whom?

[Immanuel Can]

You've used a couple of labels, ["Calvinist," and, "Objectivist"] as though that explained why the argument can just be dismissed.

Check back, RC. I neither said that, nor implied that.

With regard to Piper's Calvinism, he's proud to own it. I didn't put it on him. But in point of fact, I have principled objections to Calvinism, so the label just tells you which side of the Determinism debate he and I are on. No more.

As for Objectivism, all I said is that it is not the same as "objective" -- which is true. So there wasn't even a pejorative implication in my saying so. It's just a fact.

No ad hominem implied. No prejudice either.

...the Calvinist view of predestination and unconditional election is exactly what the Bible teaches...

Piper thinks so. I completely disagree. I know why I disagree. And my reasons are the Biblical ones. So I don't think Mr. Piper has a leg to stand on, actually.

I don't want to derail this thread, RC: but here are all the reasons you'll ever need why John Piper is wrong. https://soteriology101.com

[Sculptor]

Your premise is not supported

It's not my premise. It was yours.

I just applied induction to it.

So what?

So you have your priorities all fucked up.

No it was your premise. "Death is bad". That depends.
The assertion that my priorities are fucked up is purely subjective.
Please try to attend to the thread topic.

[Sculptor]

Other animal species are capable of caring.

Is that what they tell you?

Well, OK then. If all those animals care so much, they can do something about it, right?

What is "IT" in your sentence?

[RCSaunders]

Other animal species are capable of caring.

Is that what they tell you?

Well, OK then. If all those animals care so much, they can do something about it, right?

What is "IT" in your sentence?

Whatever it is you say the, "other animal species are capable of caring," about. You're the one who thinks they are capable of caring about something, not me.

[Skepdick]

No it was your premise. "Death is bad". That depends.

You said the thing below, right?

I rather feel that there are many people that would disagree entirely with this.
As individuals we all face our individual extinction.

In "facing your own individual extinction" (e.g death/dying) you are probably milling over the question: Do I want to die?
The way I see it: You have the choice right now - you are not acting on it.

For every second you are milling over the question and not killing yourself, I am going to notch it up to my hypothesis "You don't want to die.". For whatever reason - for Albert Camus' reason. That which is preventing you from ending your life is the meaning of life.

And so you don't want to die - and living is meaningful to you. If you get hit by a bus and you die that would be bad.

If you dying is bad - ALL of us dying is the worst.

The assertion that my priorities are fucked up is purely subjective.

That's because you don't know that morality is objective. I do.

It is my objective moral claim, independent of my own opinion that your priorities are fucked up.

It is based on you saying "Extinction of humanity is probably going to happen at some point: The sooner the better".
Better for WHOM?!? Humanity has the choice to kill itself immediately exactly like an individual has the choice to commit suicide immediately.
The point at which humanity becomes extinct can be tomorrow. We have nukes - lets go!!!

The sooner we become extinct - the worse!
The later we become extinct - the better!

Better is better than worse! Better is objectively moral. Worse is objectively immoral.

What you are doing is called Temporal discounting. You are a short-term thinker.

I am perfectly happy to do everything in my power to try and change your mind - to get you to see that morality is objective, but if (and despite of) my best efforts you still truly believe that we should work towards the sooner extinction of the human race and you actively pursue that goal you are objectively immoral and heinous human being. And I would happily do everything in my power to end you. Legally or clandestinely. If murder is what it takes and I have to pay the price of jail or exile from humanity - I don't care.

Humanity is more important than me and you.

Please try to attend to the thread topic.

The thread topic is a loaded question. It pre-supposes its own conclusion.

What could make morality objective? Nothing. It already is objective.

I know this. You don't - that's why we are debating.

Q.E.D

[RCSaunders]

You've used a couple of labels, ["Calvinist," and, "Objectivist"] as though that explained why the argument can just be dismissed.

Check back, RC. I neither said that, nor implied that.

With regard to Piper's Calvinism, he's proud to own it. I didn't put it on him. But in point of fact, I have principled objections to Calvinism, so the label just tells you which side of the Determinism debate he and I are on. No more.

But the article was not about theology or a specific philosophy, but about the objectivity of moral principles. It could have been written by a Buddhist about a communist's arguments for object moral principles, but you never mention the argument.

As for Objectivism, all I said is that it is not the same as "objective" -- which is true. So there wasn't even a pejorative implication in my saying so. It's just a fact.

But if it had nothing to do with the argument, why mention it?

...the Calvinist view of predestination and unconditional election is exactly what the Bible teaches...

Piper thinks so. I completely disagree.

I don't blame you for that, it's a horrible doctrine, but it is definitely what many passages in the Bible unambiguously teach, though there are certainly others that seem to contradict it. Like the Bible's emphasis on vengeance and vindictiveness which contradict others that seem to extol mercy and blessing, the only way to resolve the contradictions is to deny the clear statements that one does not like, or to pretend they mean something other than what they say.

I don't want to derail this thread, RC: but here are all the reasons you'll ever need why John Piper is wrong. https://soteriology101.com

That's a hoot. The title of the thread is, "What could make morality objective?" I posted part of an article that explains exactly how moral principles can be objectively established, which explanation you never address, and instead address someone's theology.

If you don't want to derail the thread, address the issues raised in the article.

[RCSaunders]

Humanity is more important than me and you.

Important to whom?

Only individuals have values and nothing is important except to those capable of having values. Nothing is important if it is not important to some individual. Nothing, not society, not mankind, not humanity is more important than individuals, i.e., you and me.