What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

...you'd be terrified to live in such a society and among such people, because there would be no one there to tell you what to do, how live, and pick up after you.

Now, now, RC...that's just silly.

Tell me where they are, and I'll go and give it a try.

You're not a believer in objective (i.e. intrinsically real and obligatory) morality at all.

You are absolutely right. I have no use for that religious twaddle.

Then you do not believe in objective morality. You believe that people with the delusion of morality have objectives. And that's quite a different thing.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

If your idea of morality is some kind of obligation imposed on human beings by some authority, it is an evil the world and mankind would be better off without. Nothing good has ever come from that view, but endless evil has.

Nobody's talking about "imposing" morality, RC.

If the world was created with intrinsic moral value, then nothing at all is being "imposed": you either happen to recognize the real, objective value of the things and persons in the world, or you do not; but nobody's going to impose that recognition on you. Indeed, as Locke said so well, nobody can -- because anyone who tried would be working against the Creator, who has bestowed you with the conscience and the free will to decide what you will and will not believe and do, and He alone can say whether you've lived in consonance with the intrinsic moral value of His creation, or spent your life violating it. You either understood the moral nature of the world for what it was, the deliberate creation of God for His purposes, or pretended it had none, and used the world for your own purposes. That's all.

And, as Locke said, on what he called "The Great Day," the Day of Judgment you give your account to your Creator...not to any human authority.

So you're certainly safe from me, and from anybody who thinks as I do. Watch out instead for people who have objectives they want to impose on you. They're the problem.

[RCSaunders]

So you're certainly safe from me, and from anybody who thinks as I do.

That's a relief. I was under the impression from, things you've said, that you supported government regulation of business, medicine, food, public education, welfare, taxes, and laws governing what people could do with their own property and bodies and where and how they kept or used their money all enforce by armed thugs (police). I'm glad to discover you are opposed to all that kind of oppression which is the greatest threat to my well being.

[Immanuel Can]

So you're certainly safe from me, and from anybody who thinks as I do.

That's a relief. I was under the impression from, things you've said, that you supported government regulation of business, medicine, food, public education, welfare, taxes, and laws governing what people could do with their own property and bodies and where and how they kept or used their money all enforce by armed thugs (police). I'm glad to discover you are opposed to all that kind of oppression which is the greatest threat to my well being.

Naw, if you think that, you have no idea what I really think. Maybe you're reacting to some extreme that is far, far beyond where I am, but you've missed my point completely.

I'm totally a small-government advocate, almost all the way to the libertarian side. And I'm a free-conscience advocate in religious matters...heck, I don't even believe in clergy, let alone the politicization of religion. I'm about the least collectivist kind of person you'll ever meet, in practice.

But because I'm a Christian, I also believe very strongly in personal social responsibility. I'm in favour of voluntary compassionate societies, charities, and such social-help initiatives. But I think they should be done by the private sector, not by government, because government doesn't do anything well. It's even pretty lousy at managing things like roads and civil order...but there, it's a bit of a necessary evil, I suppose.

So I'm glad to sort that out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right. So the Islamic "god" is not actually God. I agree: it's not.

That's pretty straightforward.

When and where did I say the Islamic God is not 'actually' God within the theistic perspective?

Above. You said that one God says "Do not kill," and the other says "Kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat..." If you believe that, you do not believe they are talking about the same "god." They are talking about two different ones.

That is the point, theism is full of contradictions, thus false.
You cannot prove your God is true while the Muslim God is false.
Both God are defined truly within theism.

Note the point is about theism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
which produced pseudo-morality.

It's just as if I said, "VA is a tall male," and "VA is a short female." The logical and inevitable conclusion to such a contradiction is that we are talking about two different people called "VA."

As far a VA is concerned this can be easily verifying the person empirically.

WHO ARE YOU to insists Muslims are not theists?

I didn't.
You pointed out that their beliefs contradict Christian beliefs. So you realize that the god the Muslims describe is not the God Christians describe.
Easy.

What is God is absolute and there is only one same absolute God for the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus [Brahman] and other monotheistic beliefs.
What each theistic beliefs believed about God is a different issue in this case.
Just the same as different people may have different views of "VA" but there is only one VA in reality.

My point is any supposedly absolute God driven moral system [theistic] is based on pseudo-morality

[RCSaunders]

It's [government] even pretty lousy at managing things like roads and civil order...but there, it's a bit of a necessary evil, I suppose.

It's that supposition I was referring to. What is, "civil order?" How is it managed? Do you think a police force is necessary? Are taxes necessary? Begin with those.

[Immanuel Can]

When and where did I say the Islamic God is not 'actually' God within the theistic perspective?

Above. You said that one God says "Do not kill," and the other says "Kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat..." If you believe that, you do not believe they are talking about the same "god." They are talking about two different ones.

That is the point, theism is full of contradictions, thus false.

You mean that if one person says that VA is a tall male, and one says that VA is a short female, then logically, you think that means there can be no VA?

I'm sorry you don't exist, then. My apologies for banishing you from existence by my error.

You cannot prove your God is true while the Muslim God is false.

Sure you can. To prove which one is the real VA, all somebody would have to do is to know the real VA.

It's just as if I said, "VA is a tall male," and "VA is a short female." The logical and inevitable conclusion to such a contradiction is that we are talking about two different people called "VA."

As far a VA is concerned this can be easily verifying the person empirically.

Now you've got it!

It's exactly the same procedure in reference to God. Views which conform to how God actually is, are true. Those that do not conform to the true nature of who God is are false. It's that simple.

...there is only one same absolute God for the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus [Brahman] and other monotheistic beliefs.

So many things wrong with this idea...where does one start?

How about first with the fact that Hinduism isn't a "monotheism"? It's a Pantheism, or even a polytheism. Why do you think they call India, "the land of a million gods?"

Secondly, if someone gets the description of God wrong, then it's quite obviously not the real God they're worshipping. Instead, at best, it's a wrong guess, and at worst, it's a fiction they or others, have created. And not only do I think so, but so does every other religion.

Same with VA. If I've never met VA (as indeed I have not) and I insist that you are a ten-foot-tall bird, then the logical conclusion is not that there is no such thing as a VA, but that I don't actually know anything about VA at all.

Easy again.

[Immanuel Can]

It's [government] even pretty lousy at managing things like roads and civil order...but there, it's a bit of a necessary evil, I suppose.

It's that supposition I was referring to. What is, "civil order?"

In its simplest form, it's the arrangement that when I drive us to work in the morning, I'll pick you up at 8 and you agree to be ready. We've agreed. There's order. And if you decide to sleep in, you've violated your (informal) contract with me, and I will feel justified in leaving you and going without you. But we both understand the rules: be ready at 8, and I'll drive you in for free. That's an example of civil order.

Do you think a police force is necessary?

Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist? Or were you planning on handling them all yourself?

Are taxes necessary?

That depends. If I want to live without fresh water, or roads, or protection from marauders, no...they're not necessary. Or if you can suggest an alternate way of obtaining these things without recourse to taxation, I might prefer that. What would you suggest?

[Nick_A]

Peter

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

I'd like to approach this question from a different perspective. The essence of objective morality is the conscious efforts of one person to enable another to become themselves. The trouble is that if we don't know ourselves, how can we know another to become themselves but by subjective standards. If we don't know universal purpose and how they relate to Plato's forms, we are obviously incapable of serving universal purpose by helping another to become themselves

So my question to you if we don't know universal purpose or what it means to "Know Thyself," how can we expect to grasp what objective morality is since we are limited to subjective concepts of good and evil. The real question for me here is if humanity as a whole can ever awaken to the experience of objective morality and if not, why not?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

I'd like to approach this question from a different perspective. The essence of objective morality is the conscious efforts of one person to enable another to become themselves. The trouble is that if we don't know ourselves, how can we know another to become themselves but by subjective standards. If we don't know universal purpose and how they relate to Plato's forms, we are obviously incapable of serving universal purpose by helping another to become themselves

So my question to you if we don't know universal purpose or what it means to "Know Thyself," how can we expect to grasp what objective morality is since we are limited to subjective concepts of good and evil. The real question for me here is if humanity as a whole can ever awaken to the experience of objective morality and if not, why not?

Thanks, but I disagree with your premise.

Suppose we did 'know ourselves' - whatever that means. And suppose we could help others to 'become themselves' - whatever that means.

That still would not mean it's a fact that we should or ought to help others to become themselves. The claim that it would be morally right to do so would be subjective, because it would express a matter of opinion.

Your expressions - 'the essence of objective morality' and 'the experience of objective morality' - assume there is such a thing that has an essence and can be experienced - so they beg the question. First you have to show that objective morality exists.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

Sure.

If God exists, then an moral values he has established for His creation are permanent, incapable of being reversed by human preference or "judgment," if you like, having no dependency whatsoever on human belief or opinion, and falsifiable in that value judgments conforming to the Divine intention are true, and those contradicting it are false.

But you've begged that question yourself. If you're an Atheist, you've already arbitrarily decided that God is not permitted to exist (as if that would make the slightest difference! What arrogance! "I will simply pronounce the Supreme Being out of existence." ) And what that means is that you will have no basis for moral judgments of an objective kind, no matter what you do. There's thus no possibility of your question being answered -- but not because the question itself is good, but because the gratuitous supposition with which you began as an Atheist cuts you off from any possibility of such an answer, leaving you floating in a subjectivist moral vacuum, crying out, "Where is this objective morality of which thou speakest?"

But the Atheist can't blame anyone for that; he did it to himself.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?
Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

Sure.

If God exists, then an moral values he has established for His creation are permanent, incapable of being reversed by human preference or "judgment," if you like, having no dependency whatsoever on human belief or opinion, and falsifiable in that value judgments conforming to the Divine intention are true, and those contradicting it are false.

But you've begged that question yourself. If you're an Atheist, you've already arbitrarily decided that God is not permitted to exist (as if that would make the slightest difference! What arrogance! "I will simply pronounce the Supreme Being out of existence." ) And what that means is that you will have no basis for moral judgments of an objective kind, no matter what you do. There's thus no possibility of your question being answered -- but not because the question itself is good, but because the gratuitous supposition with which you began as an Atheist cuts you off from any possibility of such an answer, leaving you floating in a subjectivist moral vacuum, crying out, "Where is this objective morality of which thou speakest?"

But the Atheist can't blame anyone for that; he did it to himself.

Nonsense. Atheists merely lack belief that gods exist. And the burden of proof for their existence is with theists - unmet so far, which is why theism is irrational, and atheism is rational.

And none of that has anything to do with the nature, status or function of moral assertions. If they're factual, then their source is irrelevant. So the theistic argument from moral objectivity undermines itself.

But the burden of proof for the claim that they are factual is with moral objectivists - unmet so far - and misguided anyway, because based on a category error: mistaking a value-judgement for a factual claim with a truth-value.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheists merely lack belief that gods exist. And the burden of proof for their existence is with theists - unmet so far, which is why theism is irrational, and atheism is rational.

What would you accept as proof? Let's see if that is true or not.

And none of that has anything to do with the nature, status or function of moral assertions.

.
Sure it does. Theistic moral assertions are framed as objective claims. Secular moral assertions are framed as social or personal constructions -- which is to say, complete fabrications, inherently lacking any objective referent, by their own admission. And that's why you think morality must be subjective...because there's nothing you recognize as existing that could ground a moral claim in reality, or make it objective.

So if a god says an action is morally right or wrong, it would merely be expressing its judgement, belief or opinion.

As Socrates realized, "a god," meaning one of a bunch of super-beings of some kind, would have an "opinion," and could be right or wrong about it. But "God," meaning the only one, the Supreme Being, wouldn't have "an opinion." An "opinion" implies uncertainty, and the possibility of a different "opinion". God, being the grounds for reality itself, could not have uncertainty. Neither could He be wrong in determining what right and wrong were.

[Nick_A]

Thanks, but I disagree with your premise.

Suppose we did 'know ourselves' - whatever that means. And suppose we could help others to 'become themselves' - whatever that means.

That still would not mean it's a fact that we should or ought to help others to become themselves. The claim that it would be morally right to do so would be subjective, because it would express a matter of opinion.

Your expressions - 'the essence of objective morality' and 'the experience of objective morality' - assume there is such a thing that has an essence and can be experienced - so they beg the question. First you have to show that objective morality exists.

Hello Peter

First lets take this from the beginning. On what basis do I assume objective morality exists

I look out at this enormous universe and notice it is so complex it would be absurd for me to believe it is an accident with no purpose. I have a choice; does it or doesn’t it have a purpose? Logically it makes more sense to begin my hypothesis with the premise that the universe has a purpose. There is an order to what it is doing much like a machine My problem is that I don’t know what it is.

We agree that we don’t know what it means to help others in the context of universal purpose so for us it is a matter of opinion..The question is if it is normal to be closed to objective human meaning or strive to open to it?

You seem willing to accept the idea that the universe has no purpose while I believe the expression “I AM” refers to the conscious origin of I beyond the limits of time and space and its expression within creation we appreciate as AM functioning in time and space in which humanity lives

So for those like me we are encouraged to discover what it means to serve universal purpose. Doing so is called objective morality.

Objective morality is like karma in Buddhism but without I AM.

Since you deny objective morality, there is no need to look further. But for those like me who are convinced that universal functioning suggests a meaning that includes human meaning and purpose I am willing to look further. And strive to awaken to it rather than deny it.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks, but I disagree with your premise.

Suppose we did 'know ourselves' - whatever that means. And suppose we could help others to 'become themselves' - whatever that means.

That still would not mean it's a fact that we should or ought to help others to become themselves. The claim that it would be morally right to do so would be subjective, because it would express a matter of opinion.

Your expressions - 'the essence of objective morality' and 'the experience of objective morality' - assume there is such a thing that has an essence and can be experienced - so they beg the question. First you have to show that objective morality exists.

Hello Peter

First lets take this from the beginning. On what basis do I assume objective morality exists

I look out at this enormous universe and notice it is so complex it would be absurd for me to believe it is an accident with no purpose. I have a choice; does it or doesn’t it have a purpose? Logically it makes more sense to begin my hypothesis with the premise that the universe has a purpose. There is an order to what it is doing much like a machine My problem is that I don’t know what it is.

We agree that we don’t know what it means to help others in the context of universal purpose so for us it is a matter of opinion..The question is if it is normal to be closed to objective human meaning or strive to open to it?

You seem willing to accept the idea that the universe has no purpose while I believe the expression “I AM” refers to the conscious origin of I beyond the limits of time and space and its expression within creation we appreciate as AM functioning in time and space in which humanity lives

So for those like me we are encouraged to discover what it means to serve universal purpose. Doing so is called objective morality.

Objective morality is like karma in Buddhism but without I AM.

Since you deny objective morality, there is no need to look further. But for those like me who are convinced that universal functioning suggests a meaning that includes human meaning and purpose I am willing to look further. And strive to awaken to it rather than deny it.

I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point.

Again, suppose humans do actually have a universal purpose. That still wouldn't make it a fact that humans should or ought to serve that universal purpose. To say that humans should do so would be to express an opinion, and matters of opinion are subjective.

[Peter Holmes]

Atheists merely lack belief that gods exist. And the burden of proof for their existence is with theists - unmet so far, which is why theism is irrational, and atheism is rational.

What would you accept as proof? Let's see if that is true or not.

And none of that has anything to do with the nature, status or function of moral assertions.

.
Sure it does. Theistic moral assertions are framed as objective claims. Secular moral assertions are framed as social or personal constructions -- which is to say, complete fabrications, inherently lacking any objective referent, by their own admission. And that's why you think morality must be subjective...because there's nothing you recognize as existing that could ground a moral claim in reality, or make it objective.

So if a god says an action is morally right or wrong, it would merely be expressing its judgement, belief or opinion.

As Socrates realized, "a god," meaning one of a bunch of super-beings of some kind, would have an "opinion," and could be right or wrong about it. But "God," meaning the only one, the Supreme Being, wouldn't have "an opinion." An "opinion" implies uncertainty, and the possibility of a different "opinion". God, being the grounds for reality itself, could not have uncertainty. Neither could He be wrong in determining what right and wrong were.

Your misunderstanding of the issue here is - and has always been - so fundamental, that I think there's no point in trying to explain it to you yet again. You simply refuse to recognise that saying something is so doesn't make it so, never mind who or what is doing the saying.