What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

So. '...belief in the existence of the Earth is 100% irrational.' And there's no evidence for the assertion 'the earth exists'.

But belief in the existence of moral features of reality, such as the moral wrongness of slavery, is rational - because there's evidence for their existence?

As I said - bang on and on and on, getting more and more ridiculous, in order to defend an irrational belief. Looks like theism to me.

[Immanuel Can]

You simply refuse to recognise that saying something is so doesn't make it so, never mind who or what is doing the saying.

Pari passu, saying something is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong - and who does the saying is irrelevant. To except your imagined god from this fact is to commit the fallacy of special pleading.

Let's see if that's true.

Here's a definition...
Special Pleading

Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

So if someone "provides adequate justification" to make a certain case different from others, then there is no "special pleading."

So let me ask you this: would being the Supreme Being and creator of the entire universe, and hence, the first and only Ground of Good, "provide adequate justification" to make God a "special case" relative to, say, human beings?

It's pretty clear it would. So no "special pleading is involved." If God is the Creator of all things, then any accurate definition of what is "good' for those things is derived from His having created it and defined it in the first place. So whereas to appeal to any contingent being, such as, say Kant or the Pope, would be "special pleading," it would not at all be "special pleading" to say that God knows what "good" means.

Moreover, I would suggest that the obvious conclusion from the claim, "Peter hasn't experienced X" is not anything close to, "X doesn't exist," --- but merely that "IF X does exist, Peter has not yet experienced X...but one day may, if indeed, X does exist, and won't experience X if X does not." Not a very grand claim, to be sure; but it's much more epistemologically modest and is at least compatible with the premise "Peter hasn't experienced X."

But you made the claim that "there's no proof." So I ask you again, what did you have in mind? What proof would you accept...assuming such could ever be provided?

I don't believe I said there's no proof for the existence of a god, but if I did, I withdraw that.

Okay, fair enough.

To clarify: the burden of proof for the god-existence-claim is with theists, and - to my knowledge - has never been met. That's not to say there's no god and no proof for its existence. And it isn't my job to tell you what proof would convince me. Produce the so-called proof that convinces you, and I'll assess it.

Well, I have done so several times in various places here -- and I'm guessing maybe you read some of that, though I can't say for sure. Certainly Theists have made the case in many places and in very detailed terms. Here's one of my favourite: https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Compan ... B003VIWZEM. What Atheists generally seem to want, though, is not sophisticated academic arguments, but something short, snappy and simple enough to parody...which is really their best strategy for avoiding the evidence.

And, btw, this has nothing to do with the function of moral assertions, which is unaffected by the existence or non-existence of any agent.

Actually, it has everything to do with it; because it changes what a moral assertion can refer to. If it's just a locution, or subjective, it has to refer to nothing real...it' can't be a fact claim at all. But if it does refer to something real, it is a fact claim. So we can't even decide how to regard a moral assertion without knowing what sort of claim it contains.

If your answer is, "No proof will ever satisfy me," then your complaint evaporates. Nothing would ever be good enough to convince you. But it's not possible to say any longer that Peter's disbelief is a product of any lack in evidence. There's nothing that can please him.

But, in point of fact, disbelieving in any possibility of proof is just as irrational as gratuitously refusing to believe in anything...it's a voluntary state of unbelief, not a necessary, rational or evidentiary one.

Ah - your giant straw man

"Straw man?" Not at all. But it's quite obvious logically that if a man says, "There's no proof," and then refuses to accept anything as proof, he's creating his own problem. For no proof can be given to him for whom nothing is allowed to be proof. And that requires no "straw manning" to know -- it's actually analytically true, true by definition.

you can't demonstrate the existence of your god

I'm ready to try. But you won't even tell me what you'd be willing to accept as the very "demonstration" you're demanding. So you can't know that such a thing "can't be demonstrated." All you can know is that you haven't personally "demonstrated" it to yourself --if indeed you even have a criterion or procedure for "demonstration" in mind.

So the first thing you owe yourself, rationally speaking, is to tell yourself what "demonstration" or rather, what particular kind of "failure to demonstrate" is driving your present skepticism.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

1 So your claim is: If an agent created everything and is the ground of all goodness, then its moral assertions are not subjective.

Why does the consequent follow from the antecedent?

2 The truth-value of a factual assertion is independent from its source, and from who happens to believe it is true. So if a moral assertion is factual, whether it comes from a god or anyone else has no bearing on its truth-value.

3 But the idea that an assertion of any kind is true because it comes from a god, or anyone else, is the very antithesis of objectivism.

[Skepdick]

So. '...belief in the existence of the Earth is 100% irrational.' And there's no evidence for the assertion 'the earth exists'.

I didn't make any claims as to whether there's any evidence. I pointed out that the burden of proof to present the evidence for the Earth's existence is on you. Your stones - your head.

Over and over, I need to demonstrate that your entire strategy in this discussion is nothing but an attempt at burdening other people, while unburdening yourself from justifying your faulty premises.

A double standard.

But belief in the existence of moral features of reality, such as the moral wrongness of slavery, is rational - because there's evidence for their existence?

No. It's just a logical consequence of my default position. Everything exists - there is nothing that doesn't exist.

In fact, I am willing to go as far as claiming that you can't furnish a single example of a thing that doesn't exist without appealing to a double standard.

You'll necessarily end up claiming that your head [exist | is real], but the contents of your head [don't exist | aren't real].

Which would perfectly explain why you are so intellectually challenged (your head is an empty void).

As I said - bang on and on and on, getting more and more ridiculous, in order to defend an irrational belief. Looks like theism to me.

It's not theism - it's monism. Same same but different.

If you are appealing to any dualisms/distinctions the burden of proof is on you.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

1 So your claim is: If an agent created everything and is the ground of all goodness, then its moral assertions are not subjective.

Not quite. If the Supreme Being created this world, then whatever "goodness" is, it's reflective of his purposes for that creation. And there is no higher perspective from which one could judge the question, because any justifiable concept of goodness is justifiable only to the extent it is coextensive with that.

I would never claim the same things for ordinary "agents." Ordinary agent are neither the creators of reality nor any reliable source of truth, whether moral or factual.

2 The truth-value of a factual assertion is independent from its source, and from who happens to believe it is true. So if a moral assertion is factual, whether it comes from a god or anyone else has no bearing on its truth-value.

The only reason that in human affairs the truth-value of an assertion is independent of its source is that we can lie. If we always spoke the perfect truth, then what any source says and what is true would be identical, by definition.

However, God not only does not lie, but his assertions are the foundation of reality. As Genesis said, "God said...and it was so..." His "say so" is what makes objective reality real. No greater grounds brackets that, because the Supreme Being is, by definition, the First Cause as well, the ultimate source of whatever reality you could name.

So IF one were to believe in God, one would also believe in objective morality. However, you and I are presently speaking in the hypothetical, because I realize you are not yet convinced the existence of God is a reality. So we should go back to that.

And when we do, I find that I'm still waiting for the answer to my question to you. You seem convinced that God does not exist and, so far as I can tell by what you have said, it seems you're convinced of that on no more basis than that Peter personally has not yet had any experience that convinces him God does exist.

So my question remains: what would it take to convince you?

[henry quirk]

...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.

Can someone point me to Pete's response?

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

1 So your claim is: If an agent created everything and is the ground of all goodness, then its moral assertions are not subjective.

Not quite. If the Supreme Being created this world, then whatever "goodness" is, it's reflective of his purposes for that creation. And there is no higher perspective from which one could judge the question, because any justifiable concept of goodness is justifiable only to the extent it is coextensive with that.

I would never claim the same things for ordinary "agents." Ordinary agent are neither the creators of reality nor any reliable source of truth, whether moral or factual.

So, as I said, if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.

2 The truth-value of a factual assertion is independent from its source, and from who happens to believe it is true. So if a moral assertion is factual, whether it comes from a god or anyone else has no bearing on its truth-value.

The only reason that in human affairs the truth-value of an assertion is independent of its source is that we can lie. If we always spoke the perfect truth, then what any source says and what is true would be identical, by definition.

Pathetic. It's because a factual assertion's truth-value is independent from its source that lying can be exposed. Your claim - that a factual assertion is true because a god said it or says it is - is the most complete, patent nonsense. If it's true, then the Supreme Leader's saying it's false makes not the blindest difference.

However, God not only does not lie, but his assertions are the foundation of reality. As Genesis said, "God said...and it was so..." His "say so" is what makes objective reality real. No greater grounds brackets that, because the Supreme Being is, by definition, the First Cause as well, the ultimate source of whatever reality you could name.

Claim: 'If an agent created and is the foundation of everything, then its factual assertions are true.' Non sequitur.
Claim: 'If an agent can't lie, then everything it says is true.' Empty.

So IF one were to believe in God, one would also believe in objective morality.

False, because unjustified. And also empirically false, because there are theists who are moral subjectivists.

And when we do, I find that I'm still waiting for the answer to my question to you. You seem convinced that God does not exist and, so far as I can tell by what you have said, it seems you're convinced of that on no more basis than that Peter personally has not yet had any experience that convinces him God does exist.

So my question remains: what would it take to convince you?

I wonder how many times you'll think it acceptable to misrepresent atheism. And I wonder if you do so because you have to try to off-load your burden of proof, because you can't meet it. 'I believe X. Now what will it take for you to believe X?' Please. Grow up, grow a pair - and give us your best evidence and argument for the existence of your invented god. 'Oooo, nooo, because I don't know what would convince you.' Ffs.

[Immanuel Can]

So my question remains: what would it take to convince you?

I wonder how many times you'll think it acceptable to misrepresent atheism....

Big, red herring.

If you're a subjectivist, you don't have a grounds for moral complaint, because any moral assessment you offer means no more than "Peter doesn't like X." That's hardly a basis for anything. Nobody has to care, even...you, yourself tell them that they're choice to like what you hate is also "subjective," so they can do that, and you have no grounds for complaint...your own system doesn't allow you any.

So if somebody's been "misrepresenting Atheists," (I have not, of course) it's not bad. There is no objective bad. If subjectively, I want to represent them as anything at all, that's my subjective preference. You don't have to like it, because all morality is subjective.

You see: you can't even live with your own system of assumptions. It's like Henry points out: in calling conservatives "immoral," you're apparently making an objective moral claim. If you're not, then all you're saying is "Pete hates conservatives." Which is hardly news.

So let's get to the meat of the matter.

And I wonder if you do so because you have to try to off-load your burden of proof, because you can't meet it. 'I believe X. Now what will it take for you to believe X?' Please. Grow up, grow a pair - and give us your best evidence and argument for the existence of your invented god. 'Oooo, nooo, because I don't know what would convince you.' Ffs.

Hey, you put out the challenge. I just asked what you would accept. I'm not going to offload any burden of proof: I'm just going to ask how big the burden you set would be. I want to know when I've done enough for you. I'm even letting you determine that yourself, rather than trying to tell you what it should be. I can't be more fair.

But it seems you'll accept nothing. If that's right, then the conclusion has to be that the reason that you know nothing about God is that you've chosen to know nothing. On the one hand, you claim that lack of evidence is a reason to disbelieve; and then you claim there is no evidence you would even accept.

But either the Theists are guilty of providing insufficient evidence, or they're not. The only way their information could be insufficient is if you were to establish some basis of what sufficient information would look like. Then you could say, "See? They haven't done THAT." But there's no THAT. So there's nothing they haven't done, no way in which the demand for proof has been failed. It's simply not permitted, by you, to be met.

You really can't blame anyone for falling short of a standard of proof when there's no standard of proof allowed by you.

[henry quirk]

Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.

...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.

Can someone point me to Pete's response?

-----

So, as I said, if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.

Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?

If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, yeah?

[Peter Holmes]

So my question remains: what would it take to convince you?

I wonder how many times you'll think it acceptable to misrepresent atheism....

Big, red herring. Much of your last message was that, actually. So let's get to the meat of the matter.

And I wonder if you do so because you have to try to off-load your burden of proof, because you can't meet it. 'I believe X. Now what will it take for you to believe X?' Please. Grow up, grow a pair - and give us your best evidence and argument for the existence of your invented god. 'Oooo, nooo, because I don't know what would convince you.' Ffs.

Hey, you put out the challenge. I just asked what you would accept. I'm not going to offload any burden of proof: I'm just going to ask how big the burden you set would be. I want to know when I've done enough for you. I'm even letting you determine that yourself, rather than trying to tell you what it should be. I can't be more fair.

But it seems you'll accept nothing. If that's right, then the conclusion has to be that the reason that you know nothing about God is that you've chosen to know nothing. On the one hand, you claim that lack of evidence is a reason to disbelieve; and then you claim there is no evidence you would even accept.

But either the Theists are guilty of providing insufficient evidence, or they're not. The only way their information could be insufficient is if you were to establish some basis of what sufficient information would look like. Then you could say, "See? They haven't done THAT." But there's no THAT. So there's nothing they haven't done, no way in which the demand for proof has been failed. It's simply not permitted, by you, to be met.

You really can't blame anyone for falling short of a standard of proof when there's no standard of proof allowed by you.

Sorry, but this won't work. You claim a god exists, so yours is the burden of proving that it does. So far, all the claimed evidence I know about doesn't convince me, and all the arguments I've come across are unsound. But you may have something to offer I don't know about. Go ahead.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, but this won't work. You claim a god exists, so yours is the burden of proving that it does.

I'm "shouldering up" to that burden. I'm ready to lift it. I'm just asking you what you want me to do in order to meet your standard.

Surprisingly, you can't say. I find that interesting.

So far, all the claimed evidence I know about doesn't convince me, and all the arguments I've come across are unsound. But you may have something to offer I don't know about. Go ahead.

I don't know what evidence you have seen. I'm thinking it's not much of anything actually. But either way, I couldn't possibly know. However, I gave you a link to some of the best stuff that's available, and I'm sure you won't read any of it. So I'm personally ready to step up to whatever you would accept.

But you won't accept anything, it seems.

[Nick_A]

Is objective morality the result of a personal God’s will or a universal necessity serving the evolutionary needs of relative consciousness?

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Could we live like this? Can the inner Man have a depth of need the outer man is unaware of? The outer Man or our personality is animal and lives a pragmatic subjective existence. The inner man senses what the outer man cannot so has no need to “look up”. Consequently, only a relative few can receive from above without perverting it for personal gain.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

But who notices this link? Surely not those who live by opinions of subjective morality and create their own values. Can a person outgrow their slavery to opinions? They can but who wants to if they don't feel the need for something more valuable? The essence of all games is striving for prestige and why would anyone abandon that?

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

But what if she is right and the only motive for universal respect is the recognition of our nothingness and valuing what we don’t know but necessary to feel objective values? Modern Man has convinced us to value the outer man as the only man at all cost so the battle between opinions and supremacy of subjective thought reigns supreme. Simone is right. This respect is alien to modern culture so secularism is the logical result.

But what if humanity as a whole could look up? What kind of society would be the logical result for people able to look up? But the reality is that humanity doesn’t want it so the eternal battle between opinions created from being fixated by the shadows on the wall in Plato’s cave continues.

[henry quirk]

Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.

...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.

Can someone point me to Pete's response?

-----
Pete, you posted...

...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.

Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?

If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?

[Peter Holmes]

Sure would be nice if somebody would help a guy out.

...Pete said sumthin' about conservatism or conservatives bein' immoral, and I recall Mannie askin' how Pete judges such a thing if morality is subjective.

Can someone point me to Pete's response?

-----
Pete, you posted...

...if an agent [the Supreme Being, the Great Leader, God Almighty - call it what you like - define it any way you like] created everything and is therefore the ground of all goodness, then whatever it says is good is good. So if it says it's morally right to kill practising homosexuals and witches, then it's morally right to do so. That's the morally disgusting conclusion from your morally disgusting belief.

Let's say instead of God sayin' it's okay to kill homosexuals, the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?

If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?

Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.

[Immanuel Can]

If morality is subjective, and the majority say it's okay to off gays, then it must be so, ain't that right, Pete?

Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Right. There's a difference.

1. "my opinion" means "just Pete thinks so."

2. "a matter of opinion" means "some undefined group thinks so."

3. "a matter of majority opinion" means "the biggest group thinks so."

But since numbers are not relevant to questions of right and wrong, except they indicate somebody's subjective opinion, and all of it is just subjective anyway, #1, 2 and 3 are all equally morally weighty...which is to say, not weighty or morally significant at all. What Pete approves, what some group approves and what the majority approves tell us absolutely zero about the moral standing of a particular action or situation.

That is, according to Peter.

Zero is a great democratic force. It makes everything the same -- because "nothing."