What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

As for the OT injunctions, they have to do with the legal system of the nation of Israel.

You know, IC, this is why people do not believe Christians are honest. As soon as there is something about the absolute law of God one doesn't like, like the scribes and Pharisees, they rationalize the laws out of existence. I don't personally care, but if you want people to believe the Bible is authoritative, they aren't going to if you are going to keep insisting, "well that's what it says in plain English (Hebrew or Greek in the original) but that's not what it means.

... authorities are to be respected and obeyed -- save when their demands come into conflict with one's relationship with God, which is always primary.

Well that justifies just about anything. Who decides what is in conflict with one's relationship with God? Do anything you like, so long as you believe it is God's will for you.

[henry quirk]

As I had stated your thinking is dogmatic, shallow and narrow.
Give reasons why this current trend is wrong.

Generally a the latest trend emerge due to the emergence of new knowledge and arguments.
You are very childish to merely wave them off without understanding [not necessary agree with] and providing justifications.

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

All you repeat is 'there are no moral facts, no moral facts, no moral facts, to ad nauseam without providing any sound and solid argument to justify your stance.

Hey.. your constipated Philosophical Realism only state-of-affairs stance is toothless against the current trend of meta-ethical and Moral Constructivism approaches in Morality and Ethics.

VA, you really need to stop blamin' realism (philosophical/direct). I'm a philosophical/direct realist and a moral realist

The fault is not Pete's philosophy (whatever that is).

[henry quirk]

Lying to someone intent on doing you harm to prevent that harm is actually a virtue. I always lie on all government question forms because I regard the government a dangerous enemy.

Bein' untruthful with an enemy is self-defense. Lyin' to an ally or non-adversarial stranger is wrong.


Doesn't every animal belong to itself?

Not all; mebbe some.


I have no interest in any principles that only tells me what not to do.

Me neither. I do have an interest in certain codifications of principle (fact/moral fact). For me, those codifications are the equivalent of a fence (makin' for good neighbors).

I won't lie to you and we certainly have no quarrel about the facts. Our approach is different, but if push comes to shove, we'll be on the same side.

Different paths up the mountain: we both get to the same peak.

We already are...

[Skepdick]

The problem here is that Veritas Aequitas is trying to appeal to people's moral sense to offer convincing arguments to act in a specific moral way, but is using unsound arguments to do so, pretending them to be objective when they are nothing of the kind.
If someone says be nice to everyone, many will agree.
That is not the same as saying it is an objective fact that everyone OUGHT to be nice to everyone else.

You don't get it.

"Murder is wrong" is not the same thing as "You ought not murder".

The former is a fact. The latter is an imperative.

The objective wrongness of murder doesn't stop me from murdering you.

Facts don't work the way you think they work. Facts describe the past, not the future.

The original sin of philosophy is ignoring time.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't have to cite research at this point.

No, you don't have to...nobody here has to do anything; but you do have to provide your citations, if you want to give anybody reason to believe you.

[Skepdick]

No, you don't have to...nobody here has to do anything; but you do have to provide your citations, if you want to give anybody reason to believe you.

Is that how it works in academia? How do you protect against cytogenesis ?

In the real world empirical evidence suffices.

[Immanuel Can]

As for the OT injunctions, they have to do with the legal system of the nation of Israel.

You know, IC, this is why people do not believe Christians are honest. As soon as there is something about the absolute law of God one doesn't like, like the scribes and Pharisees, they rationalize the laws out of existence.

Interesting. It was Christ Himself who pointed out that the Scribes and Pharisees, in clinging to the letter of the law had completely lost the spirit of the law, and were actually disobedient to the objective moral values the law had been intended to teach. But you would wish that I should cling to the covenant made to Israel, and be bound by that, and would fault me if I do not do as they did...

I don't personally care, but if you want people to believe the Bible is authoritative, they aren't going to if you are going to keep insisting, "well that's what it says in plain English (Hebrew or Greek in the original) but that's not what it means.

Oh, that's the opposite of what I say. I say that when the Hebrew says, "Nation of Israel," it means "Nation of Israel." It's actually you who is saying that "Israel" has to mean "Christian."

You're reading somebody else's mail, and calling it mine.

... authorities are to be respected and obeyed -- save when their demands come into conflict with one's relationship with God, which is always primary.

Well that justifies just about anything.

Quite the opposite. It means that neither family nor government can ever be used as an excuse to disobey God. That narrows, not expands the things that can be "justified" thereby.

Who decides what is in conflict with one's relationship with God?

He does.

That's why we Christians look to the Bible...not merely as a list of ancient commandments, but much more, for what it reveals about who God is personally, and what his personal wishes are. So far from being free to make it up as we go along, we're not only bound to the particular commands given to Christians, but also to keep the full spirit of those commandments, even when they don't specify fully.

Christ taught us this. If you know the Sermon on the Mount, you'll see that it contains a number of statements that begin with the words, "You have heard it said...(and then some quotation from Torah follows)...but I tell you...(and an expansion of duty follows.) For example, the Law said "Thou shalt not commit adultery," but Christ expands our understanding of that to include that we should not even allow ourselves to want adultery, or to indulge in adulterous imaginings. (Matt. 5:28)

The Pharisees never conceived of sin being something that could happen in the heart; they thought it was always external, and had to be acted upon. They were quite wrong. It was their hearts that were the problem (Matt. 23:28). It's not merely the immoral actions that separate us from God...it's much more that our character is polluted, our desires are off base, our values are wrong-headed, and in our deepest personal nature, we are not suitable for relationship with God. That's the problem.

Is it just possible you've not quite yet understood what a "Christian" really is? If you think it's just a leftover wannabe Gentile Torah-follower, I'm afraid you've got it wrong, RC.

[Immanuel Can]

Is that how it works in academia? How do you protect against cytogenesis ?

In the real world empirical evidence suffices.

I'm not sure I can ask that of VA What would he supply me with...some strands of DNA, plus some folks in existential crisis? But citations ARE from empirical research, in this case, so I think that's not unreasonable to expect.

What would be unreasonable if for VA to expect anyone to believe him with not even the benefit of somebody's research, if not his own.

[surreptitious57]

Murder is wrong is not the same thing as You ought not murder

But one should not murder precisely because murder is wrong so these statements are actually mutually compatible
And so the fact that it is wrong is the very reason why one should not do it - as with anything else that is wrong also

[Skepdick]

But one should not murder precisely because murder is wrong so these statements are actually mutually compatible
And so the fact that it is wrong is the very reason why one should not do it - as with anything else that is wrong also

That's how philosophers expect it to work, yes.

It's not how it actually works.

The wrongness of murder is descriptive of murder, not prescriptive upon my actions.

I have free will - I get to decide how to act. Knowing that murder is wrong, I get to choose whether to be moral or immoral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't have to cite research at this point.

No, you don't have to...nobody here has to do anything; but you do have to provide your citations, if you want to give anybody reason to believe you.

Nah, what is critical is whether I have provided sound arguments which I have given.
All you have to do is to show one of my premise is false, then my conclusion is false, but you have not done so.

If you can demonstrate my premises are false, then I may refer to external references if need to.
Note if I claim ''all humans including you must breathe" do you need to give you references and citations?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please refer to the statements I made above.
You are not learning your lesson.

Where?
Don't be too hasty, you are the ignorant one on the subject of morality.

Morality is what you make it. Not what YOU want to impose upon it.
Your ignorance is not concerning morality but in basic terms such a objectivity and facts

It is noted you are arguing with what is "fact" and "objectivity" from Analytic Philosophy which is very limited and unrealistic.
Here is my counter;

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

It is evident from evolutionary biology and psychology, humans has an innate impulse for morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Set out the arguments and I'll show you why they're fallacious, if I think they are. If they're sound, they'll be persuasive. Simples.

All you repeat is 'there are no moral facts, no moral facts, no moral facts, to ad nauseam without providing any sound and solid argument to justify your stance.

Hey.. your constipated Philosophical Realism only state-of-affairs stance is toothless against the current trend of meta-ethical and Moral Constructivism approaches in Morality and Ethics.

VA, you really need to stop blamin' realism (philosophical/direct). I'm a philosophical/direct realist and a moral realist

The fault is not Pete's philosophy (whatever that is).

Peter is insisting there are no moral facts based on analytic philosophy and philosophical realism. I do not agree with his views [..I am an empirical moral realist] and the reason Peter is wrong is because of his views of Philosophical Realism.

You may be a Philosophical Realist with things but whether you are transcendental or empirical moral realist depend how you determine moral facts are derived.
If you believe moral facts can be justified from empirical facts, then you are an empirical moral realist, if not, you are transcendental moral realist.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter is insisting there are no moral facts based on analytic philosophy and philosophical realism. I do not agree with his views [..I am an empirical moral realist] and the reason Peter is wrong is because of his views of Philosophical Realism.

Labels aside, I've been using your definition of 'fact' to show that your proposed moral facts aren't facts. You can keep saying you're an empirical moral realist, and that therefore there are moral facts. And if you think that works, rock on. Enjoy.

[Sculptor]

Murder is wrong is not the same thing as You ought not murder

But one should not murder precisely because murder is wrong so these statements are actually mutually compatible
And so the fact that it is wrong is the very reason why one should not do it - as with anything else that is wrong also

I think the point here is how you define murder. If murder is unlawful killing then the statement murder is wrong; and do not murder, is good advice.
Although some of the statements here can be said to be objective; that is not to say that the morality contained is also objective. You ought do not murder assumes that the law ought to be followed; this is subjective. This is not always the right advice. Most of us, given the right opportunity would have murdered Hitler for example. The law as it relates to the life of Hitler is an ass. I can think of other perfectly moral situations where doing murder is good.

Murder is wrong is not the same thing as You ought not murder

Is often compatible. But for objectivity to be in place "often" is not good enough. "Often" depends, depends is subject to circumstances and opinion.