What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

It's whether we're going to dismiss God from consideration when we answer the question, how can morality be objective?

After all, if we do that, certain logical conclusions will follow. If we do not, others will. But the determinant in both cases will be our presupposition about what is possible.

The point of objectivity is that we dismiss the opinions of agents (their judgements and beliefs) in assessing the truth-value of factual assertions

No, "objectivity" only means dismissing the opinions of "agents" that can potentially be incomplete and incorrect, because they are bound to be mere opinions, not statements of certain truth. It does not include gratuitously dismissing the truth. That would be foolish, obviously.

No, this is false and specious. The point is that truth and falsehood are functions of factual assertions. Opinions as to their truth-value have no bearing on their truth-value. I assume you understand and agree with that. And if so, you must agree that this applies to any opinions, including those of a god. A god - or any other agent - may always speak the 'certain truth' - true factual assertions. But they're not true just because the god - or any other agent - speaks them. The issue here is that which agent makes a factual assertion is irrelevant; the assertion is true or false, full stop.

That's the fundamental mistake: you're treating God as a mere concept, or as only "an agent," and thus thinking He's "subjective" in his assessments, like human beings are. But his "assessments" are not after-the-fact evaluations, as are the "assessments" of humans; rather, they are revelations of why God Himself constituted what we know as reality in the first place. As such, there is nothing more "true" than what God reveals about the constitution of reality.

No, no, no, and again, no. Ffs. The existence and nature of your effing god makes absolutely no effing difference in this matter. Granted your invented god actually exists, and is and knows exactly what you say it is and knows, and did exactly what you say it did. Suppose your god exists, created everything, including humans, for a purpose. Let's grant that for now. Okay?

That still doesn't mean a factual assertion is true just because the god says it is. And the god can't make a true factual assertion false. Do you understand and agree with this? Because if you don't, once again, we needn't bother going on.

Thus, when God, say, forbids incest, he's not responding to some pre-existing feature of the situation, or to some set of facts that pre-exist the ban. He's not "discovering" that two consanguineous people should probably not be together because it won't work out well, or because of some mere preference for certain relations over others. He's revealing, "This is the nature of what it genuinely means to be consanguineous." And the reasons for banning incest are not the consequentialist outcomes of the incest itself, bad as those might be; rather, incest is a violation of the God-created relationship between two particular human beings. As such, it's universally and objectively wrong -- and no excuses of an ex-post-facto sort can ever make it right.

Oh-kay. But 'This god forbids incest' isn't a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value.

And 'I forbid incest' isn't a moral assertion either. It's a factual assertion of what the speaker forbids.

And 'Don't commit incest' isn't an assertion of any kind, let alone a moral assertion. It's a command.

Perhaps this is the moral assertion you mean: 'Incest is morally wrong.' Do you think that makes a factual claim, with the truth-value 'true', about a feature of reality - as does any true factual assertion - that would be false if reality were different - as any factual assertion would be?

And - because, omg, it suddenly strikes me that this may matter - do you understand and agree that 'This god thinks incest is morally wrong' is not a moral assertion, but rather a factual one?

Have I understood correctly that this is your proposed objective moral assertion: 'Incest is morally wrong'?

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that truth and falsehood are functions of factual assertions.

No, they're actually properties of the correspondence between human locutions and objective reality. Those that correspond to reality are "true." Those that do not are "false."

A god - or any other agent - may always speak the 'certain truth' - true factual assertions.

No. In the case of God, He cannot speak factually untrue assertions. Factual assertions are true because of what He has spoken into existence.

That still doesn't mean a factual assertion is true just because the god says it is.

I didn't say that it becomes true if God says, after the fact, that it is. I said that it's true AND God says it's true: that God reveals what is true.

Thus, when God, say, forbids incest, he's not responding to some pre-existing feature of the situation, or to some set of facts that pre-exist the ban. He's not "discovering" that two consanguineous people should probably not be together because it won't work out well, or because of some mere preference for certain relations over others. He's revealing, "This is the nature of what it genuinely means to be consanguineous." And the reasons for banning incest are not the consequentialist outcomes of the incest itself, bad as those might be; rather, incest is a violation of the God-created relationship between two particular human beings. As such, it's universally and objectively wrong -- and no excuses of an ex-post-facto sort can ever make it right.

Oh-kay. But 'This god forbids incest' isn't a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value.

Incest isn't just wrong because God forbids it. It's objectively wrong AND God asserts it's wrong. God describes the very nature of incest as a morally reprehensible act, and objectively so, since He has constituted reality such that incest is not what human relations are for.

Perhaps this is the moral assertion you mean: 'Incest is morally wrong.' Do you think that makes a factual claim, with the truth-value 'true'...

So far so good...

...about a feature of reality

If you mean "in response to a feature of reality, " you're speaking of ex post facto pronouncement, and that is not what is going on there. So there is no "feature of reality" that exists, such that God then looks at it and says, "Hey, that's wrong."

On the contrary: the very constitution of normal and moral sexual relations, enacted in the context and for the purpose for which God Himself constituted them, is such that they cannot be incestuous and legitimate. So far as human valuations go, we learn that fact from God's command, or fail to learn it, by paying no attention to the command. But God's command actually reveals to us a feature of His intention in constituting reality in the first place. It is BOTH his command AND the objective truth about that particular action.

The command is necessary because we don't get it right all the time; but the command does not reconstitute the situation as moral or immoral; it merely reveals to us what it was all along, from the moment He constituted such a thing as healthy, human, sexual relations.

Have I understood what you're saying?

I've had to modify your wording in some ways, as you can see above. But I'm hoping you're starting to.

[Peter Holmes]

The point is that truth and falsehood are functions of factual assertions.

No, they're actually properties of the correspondence between human locutions and objective reality. Those that correspond to reality are "true." Those that do not are "false."

A god - or any other agent - may always speak the 'certain truth' - true factual assertions.

No. In the case of God, He cannot speak factually untrue assertions. Factual assertions are true because of what He has spoken into existence.

That still doesn't mean a factual assertion is true just because the god says it is.

I didn't say that it becomes true if God says, after the fact, that it is. I said that it's true AND God says it's true: that God reveals what is true.

Thus, when God, say, forbids incest, he's not responding to some pre-existing feature of the situation, or to some set of facts that pre-exist the ban. He's not "discovering" that two consanguineous people should probably not be together because it won't work out well, or because of some mere preference for certain relations over others. He's revealing, "This is the nature of what it genuinely means to be consanguineous." And the reasons for banning incest are not the consequentialist outcomes of the incest itself, bad as those might be; rather, incest is a violation of the God-created relationship between two particular human beings. As such, it's universally and objectively wrong -- and no excuses of an ex-post-facto sort can ever make it right.

Oh-kay. But 'This god forbids incest' isn't a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value.

Incest isn't just wrong because God forbids it. It's objectively wrong AND God asserts it's wrong. God describes the very nature of incest as a morally reprehensible act, and objectively so, since He has constituted reality such that incest is not what human relations are for.

Perhaps this is the moral assertion you mean: 'Incest is morally wrong.' Do you think that makes a factual claim, with the truth-value 'true'...

So far so good...

...about a feature of reality

If you mean "in response to a feature of reality, " you're speaking of ex post facto pronouncement, and that is not what is going on there. So there is no "feature of reality" that exists, such that God then looks at it and says, "Hey, that's wrong."

On the contrary: the very constitution of normal and moral sexual relations, enacted in the context and for the purpose for which God Himself constituted them, is such that they cannot be incestuous and legitimate. So far as human valuations go, we learn that fact from God's command, or fail to learn it, by paying no attention to the command. But God's command actually reveals to us a feature of His intention in constituting reality in the first place. It is BOTH his command AND the objective truth about that particular action.

The command is necessary because we don't get it right all the time; but the command does not reconstitute the situation as moral or immoral; it merely reveals to us what it was all along, from the moment He constituted such a thing as healthy, human, sexual relations.

Have I understood what you're saying?

I've had to modify your wording in some ways, as you can see above. But I'm hoping you're starting to.

So - to summarise.

1 Your proposed objective moral assertion is: 'incest is morally wrong'.

2 You think the moral wrongness of incest is a feature of reality - for a reason.

3 You think that, if reality were different, then incest would not be morally wrong.

4 You think incest is morally wrong because it is 'a violation of the God-created relationship between two particular human beings'.

Have I got it right?

[Sculptor]

As such, it's universally and objectively wrong -- and no excuses of an ex-post-facto sort can ever make it right.

Subjectivity cannot change that.

So there's your example, just as you asked.

No it is not.
Incest is defined is several ways. What's yours today?

It is recommended in the Bible, and has been successfully practiced in many different cultures.

Anthropologists have unpacked this myth.
The biggest problem, that its proscription is something to do with genetic deformity, has always been a problem since the cultures that have an incest taboo are the ones never practicing it.
In 99% cases it produces viable and healthy offsping, as long as it is not generationally practiced it is completely harmless. Occasional and seldom practied breaks in this tabbo are unlikely to be problematic. So the taboo is more likely to be be a prescription FOR exogamy and nothing to so with a proscription for health reasons.
You are just reflecting the endemic assumptions of your own culturally subjective POV.
As always, you are taking your own personal ; historically, or culturally informed prejudice and claiming that you are being objective.

[Immanuel Can]

So - to summarise.

1 Your proposed objective moral assertion is: 'incest is morally wrong'.

That's certainly one. There can be others, of course.

2 You think the moral wrongness of incest is a feature of reality - for a reason.

It depends on what you mean by "for a reason." Your reason or my reason is not the reason. Human reasons are ex post facto. Nor is the reason something like, "Because babies will be born with two heads." That's mere consequential reasoning.

The right reason is, "Because God created relations not to be of that order." His reasons for doing that, we can discuss. They are not merely instrumental reasons, nor merely arbitrary reasons.

3 You think that, if reality were different, then incest would not be morally wrong.

This, I never said at all. I said that the very nature of incest IS that it is wrong. It's objectively wrong. So there is no speaking of "if reality were different," anymore than one can speak of "If all bachelors were married," or "if all circles were square."

4 You think incest is morally wrong because it is 'a violation of the God-created relationship between two particular human beings'.

Correct.

Have I got it right?

All but number 3, and possibly parts of number 2.

[Immanuel Can]

Incest is defined is several ways. What's yours today?

I'll let you figure it out. Meanwhile, stay away from family get-togethers.

It is recommended in the Bible...

It's explicitly commanded against, actually.

[RCSaunders]

reciprocity per prior actions.

i.e proportion reply to original offense evens the scales and is justice/just reply to original offence IMO.

Two wrongs make a right?

[Sculptor]

Incest is defined is several ways. What's yours today?

I'll let you figure it out. Meanwhile, stay away from family get-togethers.

It is recommended in the Bible...

It's explicitly commanded against, actually.

Except when it is encouraged.

[Immanuel Can]

It is recommended in the Bible...

It's explicitly commanded against, actually.

Except when it is encouraged.

Can't be bothered, Sculpy.

[RCSaunders]

It's explicitly commanded against, actually.

Except when it is encouraged.

Can't be bothered, Sculpy.

Who was Cain's wife?

[Immanuel Can]

Who was Cain's wife?

It doesn't say.

Want me to make up a special moral or dispensation for that? Were there special miraculous or genetic interventions for that one lone case? I don't have the proof of any such thing, nor disproof either. I can't invent you a solution.

What we do know is that Cain's work in other areas wasn't exactly exemplary, so whatever he did is not being recommended thereby. And we know that by Leviticus 18, there's a strict edict against it, and the term "abomination" is used to describe such things. We also know it's perhaps the only taboo that's practically universal culturally.

So I think we're on good grounds.

[Sculptor]

Except when it is encouraged.

Can't be bothered, Sculpy.

Who was Cain's wife?

Good point that shall be ignored by IC

[Sculptor]

INCEST in the BIBLE

As well as God commanding Lot to fuck and impregnate his virgin daughters, we also have...

Moses is the result of incest
6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

Abraham married his sister
17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

As for reality.
The fact is that humans are more than 99% the same genetically. So its an odds game. The chances of a genetic abnormality are more likely. But incest does NOT cause genetic disorders - it just increases the risk of pairing recessive gene disorders.

But similar genetics can avoid problems too, Cousins can be more productive.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... est-kissi/

[Immanuel Can]

Who was Cain's wife?

Good point that shall be ignored by IC

Asked and answered.

The Bible also talks about a lot of things that people did that were not good, not being recommended, and not moral. David killed Bathsheba's husband. It's not being recommended. Abraham denied his wife, to the point where other men tried to 'take' her. Again, not being recommended. Likewise Moses' parents. Not recommended, just reported.

Real life is like that: good people do bad things -- and even bad people sometimes do good things, as when Manasseh repented. That's the nature of human beings, as the Bible sees it. So we can't just jump to the conclusion that if somebody's in the Bible, then everything he did is being recommended or morally cleared. It's only being recommended if it was a moral thing to do in the first place.

That's one difference between Biblical history and legend. In legends and myths, the characters tend to be one-dimensional and act quite uniformly, according to whatever particular nature the author's trying to ascribe to them; in the telling of history, people do good things, and people do bad things, act in character and violate their basic character, and it all gets reported anyway, because the point is to tell what happened -- not, as in myth, where it's merely to idealize or represent symbolically, because nothing really happened anyway.

[RCSaunders]

Who was Cain's wife?

Good point that shall be ignored by IC

Asked and answered.

Not really. I can find no prohibition to marrying a close relative in the Bible. All the references (Lev. 18, 20, Deut. 27) talk about sexual relationships with close relatives, outside of marriage. A brother is required to marry and produce children with his brother's wife if he dies. (Deut, 25:5 - 10)

Why would God forbid incest within marriage? Does God change his mind? The first marriages could not possibly have been non-incestuous so the command to multiply and replenish the world required incest. Would God require men to do what he also forbid?

I Cor. 5 and Mat. 5:28 are problematic, but specific incidents are not Biblical principles.

Don't think you can dance out of this one, IC, unless you admit incestuous marriage is not forbidden (which seems more reasonable), or God changes the rules.

However, I think the whole question is hardly the most important in terms of so-called moral issues.