What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Nietzsche did not believe God exists as real.
When Nietzsche referred to 'God' it is always from the perspective of theists' belief and not his personal beliefs.

[Peter Holmes]

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."

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

The bleak moral wilderness you fear if your invented god is absent - that's your peculiar psychological projection and problem - and I recommend 'Recovering from Religion', among other excellent secular organisations dedicated to helping those escaping or recently escaped from the asylum and coping with post-abuse trauma.

[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."

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

The bleak moral wilderness you fear if your invented god is absent - that's your peculiar psychological projection and problem - and I recommend 'Recovering from Religion', among other excellent secular organisations dedicated to helping those escaping or recently escaped from the asylum and coping with post-abuse trauma.

I wonder if that book would persuade me this world is not a bleak moral wilderness. No, I will hold on to the bleak moral wilderness view. I wish more people were pessimists, much safer for all of us.

[surreptitious57]

Inter subjective consensus is a principle of the scientific method - scientists use it all the time - it is literally what they do
Also science does not deal in truth but in the study of observable phenomena and its properties so nothing to do with truth

Fashionable and lazy claptrap

Of course scientists deal with and pursue the truth . Of course they want to record their observations and date accurately
- to tell the truth about what they find . Of course they work to counterract confirmation bias in themselves and others

The fact that scientific theories have to be provisional - best explanations so far accounting for the most data with most predictive
power - because of the problem of induction - doesnt mean that science isnt the pursuit of truth

And its the very fact that theory advances by means of intersubjective consensus - that scientists dont claim to have found the truth
- no scientist to my knowledge EVER says that truth is and can only be the product of intersubjective consensus

This is cool sounding postmodern post truth bollocks

Truth is too general a term to be applied to science which is why I say science does not deal in truth
As truth is a question for philosophy not science which deals in knowledge because its Latin root scientia means to know
So it is only concerned with knowledge gained from observable phenomena and its properties and absolutely nothing else

[Peter Holmes]

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."

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

The bleak moral wilderness you fear if your invented god is absent - that's your peculiar psychological projection and problem - and I recommend 'Recovering from Religion', among other excellent secular organisations dedicated to helping those escaping or recently escaped from the asylum and coping with post-abuse trauma.

I wonder if that book would persuade me this world is not a bleak moral wilderness. No, I will hold on to the bleak moral wilderness view. I wish more people were pessimists, much safer for all of us.

(Recovering from Religion is an organisation, not a book - sorry I used quote marks.)

I'm not sure either pessimism or optimism is appropriate or useful. But, if we and our planet have a better future, it's in recognising that it's in our collective hands - and not outsourcing our moral judgements to some Great Leader, divine or secular - and not claiming there are moral facts which any of us happens to know about, and damn the rest of yous. In my opinion, of course.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

What you say demonstrates the metaphysical delusion I'm talking about. It's so deep and pervasive that recognising and overcoming it is extremely hard.

1 When we talk about what we call 'truth', we're referring to the function of factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions - and nothing else. The things we talk about - features of reality - just are or were, neither true not false. And this applies to what scientists say about reality.

2 The expression 'absolute truth' is as incoherent as the idea of a model that's 'right', compared with which all models are wrong. To talk about absolute truth is to entertain a fantasy, if only then to dismiss it. What could an absolutely true description contain? And since the idea of 'absolute truth' is incoherent, so is the distinction between absolute truth and relative truth.

3 A truth-claim - a factual assertion - is always in a descriptive context. And features of reality can be described in countless ways, for different purposes. So there can be any number of true factual assertions about a feature of reality - and that feature can be identified and categorised in any number of ways. So - that a truth-claim is relative to - dependent on - a context is trivially true and inconsequential.

4 To say 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is only relatively or partially or contingently true is to be haunted by the ghost of a 'truth' that's absolute, or a perfect, complete, or ultimate description. Exorcise the ghost, and the delusion of 'relative' truth and so 'relative' objectivity evaporates.

5 As I understand it, the distinction we make between what we call subjectivity and objectivity refers to the function of assertions - not where they come from. So to say all assertions come from people, so all assertions are subjective, is to misunderstand the distinction. And, of course, it's possible to use the words 'subjective' and 'objective' in a different way, to make a different distinction.

6 As I understand it, a subjective assertion expresses a judgement, belief or opinion, such as 'this painting is beautiful' and 'eating animals is morally wrong'. But an objective assertion expresses a factual claim about a feature of reality that may or may not be the case, such as 'some people eat animals'. So an argument as to whether a painting is or isn't beautiful, or whether eating animals is or isn't morally wrong, can never be settled by checking out the situation in reality - it boils down to a matter of judgement, and there's no factual truth or falsehood. But whether some people do or don't eat animals is a factual matter, checkable in reality, so the claim is true or false.

7 Some scientific factual assertions - conclusions - are provisional, mainly because of the problem of induction. And scientists reach them by a process of intersubjective consensus. But that's about the way an assertion is reached and produced - about its source - which has no bearing on the function of the assertion, which, like any other factual assertion, is to claim something about a feature of reality that may or may not be the case. And that's why such an assertion is objective.

[Skepdick]

The things we talk about - features of reality - just are or were

To use your own criticism against you.... You are confusing what things are for what we say about them.

Nobody has any idea what things "are". You don't know what a cat IS.

And this applies to what scientists say about reality.

Obviously it applies to scientists. Everybody is a scientist - without empiricism there's no "reality to say things about.

But you are failing to address your own point. What is the function of making factual assertions about reality?

WHY bother making such assertions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What you say demonstrates the metaphysical delusion I'm talking about. It's so deep and pervasive that recognising and overcoming it is extremely hard.

Don't be too quick to jump to conclusion when,
You are the ignorant one and is delusional.
Nope what you proposed of reality, any average person or kid can understand that which is common sense but superficial.

1 When we talk about what we call 'truth', we're referring to the function of factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions - and nothing else. The things we talk about - features of reality - just are or were, neither true not false. And this applies to what scientists say about reality.

Note I had argued Science merely ASSUMED there are things-we-talk-about - feature of reality.
Prove to me there are real things-we-talk-about - feature of reality?

I have raised numerous threads to justify this point, e.g.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

What is Really Real?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

2 The expression 'absolute truth' is as incoherent as the idea of a model that's 'right', compared with which all models are wrong. To talk about absolute truth is to entertain a fantasy, if only then to dismiss it. What could an absolutely true description contain? And since the idea of 'absolute truth' is incoherent, so is the distinction between absolute truth and relative truth.

You are proposing your experiencing of reality is absolutely real -which is nonsense and incoherent, but you are doing that ignorantly.
You are claiming there is an absolute real table out there independent of human beliefs and opinion.

I am arguing, what you are experiencing is not absolutely independent of human conditions, but inevitably you and all humans cannot extricate yourself from reality which you are part and parcel of.
Thus whatever reality you experience and expressed in relative objectivity.

3 A truth-claim - a factual assertion - is always in a descriptive context. And features of reality can be described in countless ways, for different purposes. So there can be any number of true factual assertions about a feature of reality - and that feature can be identified and categorised in any number of ways. So - that a truth-claim is relative to - dependent on - a context is trivially true and inconsequential.

I agree there can be many factual assertion about a feature of reality. This is so obvious.
E.g. I can describe the table out there in many ways using different linguistic forms or even poetry.
But that is not the point I am contending.

What I am asserting is,
the table that you are describing out there,
is an emergence and creation which you with the collective participated in enabling its existence.
note my argument here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671
In other words you are the co-creator of the reality which you in turn describes using language.
This perspective is a different 'kettle of fish' from the common sense views you are espousing.

4 To say 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is only relatively or partially or contingently true is to be haunted by the ghost of a 'truth' that's absolute, or a perfect, complete, or ultimate description. Exorcise the ghost, and the delusion of 'relative' truth and so 'relative' objectivity evaporates.

I had stated to say the earth is oblate spheroid is merely a convenience but not reflecting reality at all.

5 As I understand it, the distinction we make between what we call subjectivity and objectivity refers to the function of assertions - not where they come from. So to say all assertions come from people, so all assertions are subjective, is to misunderstand the distinction. And, of course, it's possible to use the words 'subjective' and 'objective' in a different way, to make a different distinction.

Note I have argued, the 'where they come from' is partly from you and other humans contributing at the co-creator of that thing out there.

6 As I understand it, a subjective assertion expresses a judgement, belief or opinion, such as 'this painting is beautiful' and 'eating animals is morally wrong'. But an objective assertion expresses a factual claim about a feature of reality that may or may not be the case, such as 'some people eat animals'. So an argument as to whether a painting is or isn't beautiful, or whether eating animals is or isn't morally wrong, can never be settled by checking out the situation in reality - it boils down to a matter of judgement, and there's no factual truth or falsehood. But whether some people do or don't eat animals is a factual matter, checkable in reality, so the claim is true or false.

I had argued, that feature of reality itself that human asserts and judge about, actually emerged with you and the collective as co-creators.

7 Some scientific factual assertions - conclusions - are provisional, mainly because of the problem of induction. And scientists reach them by a process of intersubjective consensus. But that's about the way an assertion is reached and produced - about its source - which has no bearing on the function of the assertion, which, like any other factual assertion, is to claim something about a feature of reality that may or may not be the case. And that's why such an assertion is objective.

As far as Science is concerned, as stated above, Science merely ASSUMED that 'something about a feature of reality"
The best Science can do is merely based on observation of what is deemed to be a real feature of reality but there is no way Science will ever know what that thing really is, thus it has to assume.

In this case, you are also by default assuming there is something real out there, but ignorantly jumped to conclusion hastily and imagine you are in touch with the real thing out there. This is why you are the delusional one insisting what is illusory as really real.

If not, prove you are realizing reality as it is or whatever it is.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Claim: we are the co-creators of the reality we observe. So it wouldn't partly be what it is, if we weren't here to observe it. Which part? And anyway, prove it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Yes, you have tried to offer something, it's true. I can't deny that you've said stuff.

But it has all been shown. by many different interlocutors and by many lines of argument, to be totally inadequate, and you continue to cling to it. So I don't know what more can be said about that. There's no way to make a person believe what she's devoted not to believe even if the clearest arguments and the best reasons are adduced in hopes to change her mind.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

False step.

Nietzsche's argument is explicit that "gods" do not exist. Rather, it was, to use his phrase, "Judeo-Christian slave morality" that was to blame, he thought.

One doesn't blame a thing one asserts doesn't exist. That would be like saying, "The reason for gravity is unicorns." It would be obviously self-defeating; and whatever one can say about Nietzsche, he wasn't that simple-minded.

[Immanuel Can]

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

Of course your word "invented" is merely rhetorical and deliberately contentious, obviously. Of course I reject that.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

That would be like saying, "Those who don't believe in gravity don't have to respect gravity." If God is real, as I maintain, then the most utterly foolish thing one could ever do was disregard that fact. It's the first fact, the one of the highest importance. And one's "disbelief" is an utterly ineffective defence against the truth, thinner than the thinnest tissue paper.

As the Bible puts it, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," and "The fear of (awed reverence for) God is the beginning of wisdom." Since God Himself is the Source of all good things, the orientation point of moral truth and the Determiner of the meaning of life, to deny the existence of God is like putting a gun to one's own head...nothing good is going to follow that particular choice.

So my suggestion is, consider making a better choice, while you still can.

[Peter Holmes]

So, let's be crystal clear about this.

The only reason you have to claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - is that your invented god is their source.

Of course your word "invented" is merely rhetorical and deliberately contentious, obviously. Of course I reject that.

So those of us who don't believe any gods or other supernatural things exist - let alone things whose nature and desires we know anything about - can rationally dismiss your claim. It's all, and has always been, sound and fury signifying nothing.

That would be like saying, "Those who don't believe in gravity don't have to respect gravity." If God is real, as I maintain, then the most utterly foolish thing one could ever do was disregard that fact. It's the first fact, the one of the highest importance. And one's "disbelief" is an utterly ineffective defence against the truth, thinner than the thinnest tissue paper.

As the Bible puts it, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," and "The fear of (awed reverence for) God is the beginning of wisdom." Since God Himself is the Source of all good things, the orientation point of moral truth and the Determiner of the meaning of life, to deny the existence of God is like putting a gun to one's own head...nothing good is going to follow that particular choice.

So my suggestion is, consider making a better choice, while you still can.

But there's evidence for gravity. And those who don't believe in it will suffer the consequences when they jump off a tall building.

'Because gravity is real ...' is nothing like 'If God is real ...' So your analogy is completely false.

And suppose you've been suckered by a bunch of hucksters, and you've got the wrong god. That would be the most utterly foolish thing one could ever do. Plus, you'd have wasted your life before roasting in some other religion's hell.

You have absolutely nothing but your unjustified and therefore irrational belief in a god for whose existence and nature there is no serious evidence. And even if it did exist and was the source of all good things, that still wouldn't make morality objective. 'If X is consonant with / contrary to God's nature, then X is morally right / morally wrong' - doesn't follow, whatever the god's nature is. There's no logical entailment.

And to end, disconsolate in the ruin of your pathetic faith, you lash out with a threat: make a better choice, while you still can. What clearer demonstration of intellectual and moral bankruptcy could there be?

[Immanuel Can]

You have absolutely nothing but your unjustified and therefore irrational belief in a god for whose existence and nature there is no serious evidence.

You clearly won't accept anything at all as evidence. I've offered to try to meet the challenge you set, if it's a sensible one, one I can be expected to meet. But nothing's what you will consider evidence.

In a court, there are rules for what will and won't count as evidence...like, "no hearsay," or "two witnesses required for a murder conviction," or "spouses cannot be compelled to testify," or "mental incapacity will exclude witnesses and will mitigate culpability," or "a dying declaration is taken with extra seriousness..." and so on. But in the court of Peter, there are no rules for evidence. Nothing ever counts as evidence, apparently.

That is, unless you've changed your mind, and now have a standard of evidence you would consider reasonable...

But if not, you're in no position to judge whether or not evidence is available. All you are enabled to say is that nothing you ever see will be, for you, evidence.

[Peter Holmes]

You have absolutely nothing but your unjustified and therefore irrational belief in a god for whose existence and nature there is no serious evidence.

You clearly won't accept anything at all as evidence. I've offered to try to meet the challenge you set, if it's a sensible one, one I can be expected to meet. But nothing's what you will consider evidence.

In a court, there are rules for what will and won't count as evidence...like, "no hearsay," or "two witnesses required for a murder conviction," or "spouses cannot be compelled to testify," or "mental incapacity will exclude witnesses and will mitigate culpability," or "a dying declaration is taken with extra seriousness..." and so on. But in the court of Peter, there are no rules for evidence. Nothing ever counts as evidence, apparently.

That is, unless you've changed your mind, and now have a standard of evidence you would consider reasonable...

But if not, you're in no position to judge whether or not evidence is available. All you are enabled to say is that nothing you ever see will be, for you, evidence.

I don't remember your citing any evidence for the existence of your god. Perhaps I missed it.

As a working principle, evidence for a natural occurrence has to be natural. And the more unusual the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be. But I expect you agree with those criteria.

Why not cite your strongest piece of natural evidence for the existence of your god? Then the rest of us can assess it.

(But the existence of a god has no bearing on the objectivity or subjectivity of morality - so we're off the OP topic.)