What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, how do you know what God commands? How do you know what God's commands reveal?

I think it's patently obvious -- and I've said as much several times now -- that if God does not speak, does not reveal Himself and the moral truth to humans, we're all out of luck. That is, we're all involved in a blindfolded groping for whatever "morality" might be, with none of us in a better position to find it than anyone else, and with the real possibility none of us finds it at all.

We're all on the same level, morally speaking, and in the worst situation. We're all in the dark, and without help, if that's the case.

But God has spoken. And as Christ said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

[Belinda]

Nietzsche refered to the passing away of the old order of Authority as ultimate arbiter of good and evil.

Yeah, but he named that "authority." It was the authority of what he explicitly called, "Judeo-Christian morality." That's pretty clear.


So?

Yes, all events in man's past are historical events. Nietzsche was historical like every other man

[Immanuel Can]

But Immanuel, we are condemned by uncaring nature to be free to choose not only items of a moral code but moral criteria too.

If that were true, B, and "uncaring nature" is all there is, then we are not "free to choose" anything: rather, we are all wrong. "Morality," lock, stock and barrel, is a fake, an inauthentic human glossing on the cold, indifferent facts of "nature." What we "choose" from the options of folly and untruth we have then left before us makes no difference at all. Whatever we do will not be more or less "moral." It will simply be a different option among equally amoral concerns.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, how do you know what God commands? How do you know what God's commands reveal?

I think it's patently obvious -- and I've said as much several times now -- that if God does not speak, does not reveal Himself and the moral truth to humans, we're all out of luck. That is, we're all involved in a blindfolded groping for whatever "morality" might be, with none of us in a better position to find it than anyone else, and with the real possibility none of us finds it at all.

We're all on the same level, morally speaking, and in the worst situation. We're all in the dark, and without help, if that's the case.

But God has spoken. And as Christ said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Welcome to the real world, Immanuel. Scary isn't it. The Titanic has hit the iceberg and you are in a wee lifeboat with your oars and the cold Pole Star.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, all events in man's past are historical events. Nietzsche was historical like every other man

I'm just saying you'd be wrong to think Nietzsche had any accusations for God -- he didn't think the word "god" referred to anything at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Welcome to the real world, Immanuel. Scary isn't it.

Such rhetorical flourishes do not impress, B. There are two ways of telling that story, and the other one, the secular one, is far scarier, perhaps.

But just as a thing doesn't become true by being "less scary," so too a thing doesn't become true (or more noble) by being "more scary." "Scary" has nothing to do with truth, either way.

So you're just barking up the wrong tree there.

[Belinda]

Welcome to the real world, Immanuel. Scary isn't it.

Such rhetorical flourishes do not impress, B. There are two ways of telling that story, and the other one, the secular one, is far scarier, perhaps.

But just as a thing doesn't become true by being "less scary," so too a thing doesn't become true (or more noble) by being "more scary." "Scary" has nothing to do with truth, either way.

So you're just barking up the wrong tree there.

No. I am not a masochist, Immanuel. I am easily scared and often wish there were a loving Heavenly Father to take charge.

[Belinda]

But Immanuel, we are condemned by uncaring nature to be free to choose not only items of a moral code but moral criteria too.

If that were true, B, and "uncaring nature" is all there is, then we are not "free to choose" anything: rather, we are all wrong. "Morality," lock, stock and barrel, is a fake, an inauthentic human glossing on the cold, indifferent facts of "nature." What we "choose" from the options of folly and untruth we have then left before us makes no difference at all. Whatever we do will not be more or less "moral." It will simply be a different option among equally amoral concerns.

That is true, Immanuel.

It does not make me a nihilist however. I have faith in cosmic order.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I am not a masochist, Immanuel. I am easily scared and often wish there were a loving Heavenly Father to take charge.

Well, it's true that wishing something was so doesn't make it so. But it's equally true that fearing something might not be so doesn't make it not-so. Both are equally true. The real question is not what we want, or what we fear, but what is so.

[Immanuel Can]

I have faith in cosmic order.

That's an interesting claim, B.

You say there's a "cosmic" force, and one of the things it does is to produce an "order," and you have "faith" in it...but it's not God, you say...?

[RCSaunders]

I have faith in cosmic order.

Mysticism is mysticism, whatever name you give it.

[Skepdick]

Mysticism is mysticism, whatever name you give it.

Nah. Some mysticism is much less overt, to the point where it's considered legitimate by some.

It usually goes by the names of "logic" and "reason".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, scientists arrive at theories (explanations) by means of processes of intersubjective consesnsus. (Pay attention to what I've just said.)

But no, scientists don't even begin to assume that processes of intersubjective consensus produce what we call 'truth' and 'fact'. And to say that what we call truth and fact are and can only be the products of intersubjective consesnsus is so utterly wrong that it's staggering.

You missed my point;

Note there are two types of truth and fact in this case;

I stated,
Science as a field of knowledge made the ASSUMPTION in its scientific model, that truth and facts of reality exists independent of the observers.
Scientists has to made the above ASSUMPTION otherwise they will be chasing after illusions. But is it only an assumption that has to be made.

Meanwhile, Science relying on the Scientific Method and peer review can only produce qualified scientific truths and facts and not those assumed truth and facts as above.
So what we called scientific truths and facts are a resultants which intrinsically entail intersubjective consensus.

Therefore you cannot conflate assumed truths and facts required for the scientific methods with the resulting qualified truths and facts from the scientific process involving intersubjective consensus.

You insist what you claimed as truths and facts are absolute independent of anyone's opinion nor beliefs, but you are wrong to claim so.
But this is merely a Philosophical Realists' view which is not realistic at all.

Nope. A factual assertion - one about a feature of reality that may or may not exist - is true or false, given the way we use the signs involved in context. And this applies to any kind of factual assertion, including assertions produced by scientists. They don't produce a special kind of 'truth' and 'fact' that is merely the result of intersubjective consensus. That's an absurd idea.

Please go back to my example, and actually address it.
Do you think that if the scientific intersubjective consensus is that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat, and so the factual assertion 'the earth is flat' is true?

IF that is your example, then it is a scientific truth 'the earth is flat' is true.
In this 'as if' case, " 'the earth is flat' is true" is a scientific truth.

In this case [as if Scenario], if someone insists,
" 'the earth is flat' is true"
then, he must qualify it by stating;
it is because Science verified and confirm that.

What is critical here is the qualification and condition;
thus " 'the earth is flat' is true" is a relative-objective relative upon the Scientific Method and peer review.

BUT in practice, there is no way Science would accept the above "as if" scenario that the "Earth is flat" is true.
Scientists using the Scientific Method has declared the shape of the Earth is a "oblate spheroid".
In this case, " 'the earth is a spherical oblate' is true" is not an absolute objective truth/fact, but it is still a relative objective fact.

Therefore the proposition " 'the earth is a spherical oblate' is true" because Science said so. There is not way one can claim "the Earth really is "oblate spheroid" without reference to Science or any conditions involving subjects.

In addition, scientific facts are at best polished conjectures and will always remain so. Science can only ASSUME there is something real.

There is no way one can state the absolute ultimate Truth/Fact of what the shape of the Earth is. That the Earth "oblate spheroid" is merely a general truth, not the 'truth' since the Earth at any one time is always changing. It could be more like "oval" than spherical when it is full moon at the Equator when the tides are pull upward.

It is same for every fact, "one CANNOT state what the absolute ultimate Truth/Fact is" that is totally independent of the participation of the subjects, thus there are only relative objective facts/truth, i.e. grounded on intersubjective consensus.

Do you really think that's the case? I'll wait till you answer that question.

Done as above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I propose as most effective is secular objective moral model grounded on empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Okay, but you haven't said what "evidence" you would take into consideration and what line of "reasoning" would lead to the right conclusion. So the claim that "evidence" and "philosophical reasoning" to produce morality are out there somewhere, but that you don't know what, and where they are, is not a helpful strategy...either to us, or to your argument.

You need to give us something to work with there.

I have done that in this thread and various threads.
I am NOT going tru them again at present.

Now that I am refreshing on Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, I noted he was doing the same as what I am doing, albeit is quite a slipshod [insufficient rigor] and not a thorough approach.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For "Slave Morality" Nietzche was referring to Theistic Morality where believers are literally slave to a God.

No, not "to God." You'll no doubt remember that Nietzsche himself famously declared already, "God is dead" (i.e. that the "god" concept is defunct). To blame "the dead" would be absurd, and Nietzsche was not such a fool.

Consequently, he did not blame "slave morality" on God at all -- but specifically on the Jews...and later, the Christians. He argued that what "slave morality" really was, was the weak, the unfit, the powerless, exerting control of their betters -- and that the übermensch, the "supermen," would ignore "slave morality," dominate, seize power as they desired it, and rule the world their way, because they would be "beyond good and evil."

For Nietzsche, all morality is "slave morality." It's all bad. And it's all secretly a consequence of the human will-to-power, not of metaphysical beings.

For Nietzsche,

the exposition in the Genealogy (I:14) of the sense in which slave morality is the “prudence of the lowest order” (GM, I:13).
According to Nietzsche, slave morality takes certain typical characteristics of the “lowest order” and redescribes them in morally praiseworthy lights.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/niet ... political/

Nietszche associated Christianity [among others] with 'slave morality.'
The foundation of Christianity is Jesus and God.
Therefore it is God that commanded 'slave morality' according to Nietsche.