What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

That must be one hell of a rock you are living under..

I am living under "the rock" in which Christians/religious zealots are not exempt from the "humanly impossible", so whatever they think (or you think they think) are "absolutely-objective facts" ....aren't.

That doesn't dismiss those mistakenly-absolute objective facts from being objective facts of the non-absolute kind.

[Atla]

I am living under "the rock" in which Christians/religious zealots are not exempt from the "humanly impossible", so whatever they think (or you think they think) are "absolutely-objective facts" ....aren't.

Now if you weren't living under an enormous rock, you would have grasped by now that this is what "What could make morality objective?" is pointing out, so you have been arguing against your own position all along.

[Skepdick]

Now if you weren't living under an enormous rock, you would have grasped by now that this is what "What could make morality objective?" is pointing out, so you have been arguing against your own position all along.

Idiot.

NOTHING can make morality absolutely-objective. I know this.

The charitable and rational position (given this knowledge) is to assume is that Peter knows this; and you know this too.

IF you two Philosoph-idiots knows that "NOTHING can make morality absolutely-objective." it is also charitable to assume that you wouldn't ask an impossible question like "What would make morality absolutely-objective?".

Because nobody is stupid enough to ask "What could make the impossible possible?". Right! Right?!?!
Because no REASONABLE person would ask for the impossible.

Apparently you two idiots aren't all that reasonable.

[Immanuel Can]

And how does the gradualist "evolution" story run here? What would arrange, from the very dawn of human history, for most men and women to believe in something that's an entire delusion...?

Here are some suggestions - involving no 'what would arrange?' preconception.

1 Human social development - from the family to the tribe to the nation - has depended on the gradual - and painfully uneven - development of moral values and rules - which we've come to think of as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

2 Moral values and rules matter deeply to us, so we think of them as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

3 We tend to make moral judgements universally, so we tend to think of them as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

#1 is no good as an explanation. Why would societies "develop" dysfunctionally, when the first sign of such dysfunction should have, evolutionarily, resulted in their suppression relative to those who were not dysfunctional, and hence led to their eventual extinction? But if belief itself was actually adaptive, then on what grounds are we well-advised to abandon a proven-adaptive belief now? And if it's neutral adaptively, then according to Darwin, evolutionary survival itself is "blind" to it, so can't account for it at all.

#2 is no good. "Matter deeply" is neither a moral nor an adaptive principle. And it explains nothing, of course.

#3 just begs the whole question. It assumes we "tend to make" judgments, but gives us no explanation of why it's more adaptive to "tend to" delude ourselves at all.

...until they get to be postmodern, at which time they are to reject it completely, because, as moral relativists assure us, it's actually deceitful and maladaptive to believe in objective morality?

Not deceitful - it can't be deceitful to believe in something. And I don't think relativists necessarily believe moral objectivism has been or is maladaptive. And anyway, to reject moral objectivism isn't necessarily to be a moral relativist.

Yes, deceitful. It has to be, since, according to your theory, morality does not refer to anything objective -- the very definition of "deceitful."

But if one rejects objective morality, one is obviously a relativist...meaning that whatever one says "morality" might be, it has to be "relative" to societies, interest groups or individuals. So the only way one can avoid relativism, then, is by being illogical, and not really thinking through what "subjective" entails.

[Immanuel Can]

What would arrange, from the very dawn of human history, for most men and women to believe in something that's an entire delusion...

Just proof that the mass of humanity is hopelessly ignorant, superstitious, and gullible.

If so, then it cannot possibly have been an adaptive belief, so evolutionism cannot explain how it happened at all. For Darwin insisted that unless and adaptation produces a survival advantage immediately, the process of natural selection is entirely blind to it. And if it holds an organism back, relative to organisms that do not have the fault, then it's maladaptive and issues in the reduction and eventual elimination of that species.

So you haven't actually explained anything there, RC. You've just listed pejoratives, but have done nothing to show how those pejorative qualities -- even supposing we accept them as true -- could have allowed the belief in religion to persist, evolutionarily.

[Atla]

Now if you weren't living under an enormous rock, you would have grasped by now that this is what "What could make morality objective?" is pointing out, so you have been arguing against your own position all along.

Idiot.

NOTHING can make morality absolutely-objective.
EVERY Philosopher knows this.

The charitable and rational position is to assume is that Peter knows this.

IF Peter knows that "NOTHING can make morality absolutely-objective." it is also charitable to assume that he wouldn't ask an impossible question like "What would make morality absolutely-objective?".

Because nobody is stupid enough to ask "What could make the impossible possible?". Right?!?!?!?
Because no REASONABLE person would ask for the impossible. Right?

Apparently you two idiots aren't all that reasonable.

That rock must be a mountain
The whole point is that there are a gazillion unreasonable people who believe in the impossible. Even in this topic there are one or more.

[Skepdick]

That rock must be a mountain
The whole point is that there are a gazillion unreasonable people who believe in the impossible. Even in this topic there are one or more.

Yes, but the CHARITABLE position is to assume Peter isn't one of them.

Until he delivers the evidence to the contrary.

Well done for admitting that you don't give a shit about the principle of charity.

[Atla]

That rock must be a mountain
The whole point is that there are a gazillion unreasonable people who believe in the impossible. Even in this topic there are one or more.

Yes, but the CHARITABLE position is to assume Peter isn't one of them.

Until he delivers the evidence to the contrary.

Well done for admitting that you don't give a shit about the principle of charity.

You really are as stupid as you appear to be. Peter is just trying to beat some sense into the insane ones.

[Skepdick]

You really are as stupid as you appear to be.

Charitably speaking, my morning ablutions possess more intellect than you do.

Peter is just trying to beat some sense into the insane ones.

I know that. Retard. Why couldn't you figure this out without me being explicit about it?

Is just that Peter's "sensibility' fell on the wrong side of the fence.

[Atla]

You really are as stupid as you appear to be.

Charitably speaking, my morning ablutions possess more intellect than you do.

Peter is just trying to beat some sense into the insane ones.

I know that. Retard. Why couldn't you figure this out without me being explicit about it?

Is just that Peter's "sensibility' fell on the wrong side of the fence.

Yeah yeah whatever you say

I'm quite pleased with myself today, I made you realize that you've been living under an enormous rock.

[Skepdick]

Yeah yeah whatever you say

I'm quite pleased with myself today, I made you realize that you've been living under an enormous rock.

The usual self-congratulatory masturbation is quite amusing.

[RCSaunders]

What would arrange, from the very dawn of human history, for most men and women to believe in something that's an entire delusion...

Just proof that the mass of humanity is hopelessly ignorant, superstitious, and gullible.

If so, then it cannot possibly have been an adaptive belief, so evolutionism cannot explain how it happened at all. For Darwin insisted ...

I have no use for anything Darwin said and do not buy the evolutionary fairy tale any more than I do the creationist fairy tale. Rudyard Kipling's, Just So Stories, are as good as either of those. The neurotic need to know where everything came from is a kind of psychological defect.

Imagination and the fact that for any possible right answer to any question there are an infinite number of possible wrong one's is the source of all superstition. There is absolutely no need for some mystic explanation for why people believe what is not true. It's easier and it makes them feel good.

[Peter Holmes]

And how does the gradualist "evolution" story run here? What would arrange, from the very dawn of human history, for most men and women to believe in something that's an entire delusion...?

Here are some suggestions - involving no 'what would arrange?' preconception.

1 Human social development - from the family to the tribe to the nation - has depended on the gradual - and painfully uneven - development of moral values and rules - which we've come to think of as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

2 Moral values and rules matter deeply to us, so we think of them as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

3 We tend to make moral judgements universally, so we tend to think of them as facts, rather than matters of opinion.

#1 is no good as an explanation. Why would societies "develop" dysfunctionally, when the first sign of such dysfunction should have, evolutionarily, resulted in their suppression relative to those who were not dysfunctional, and hence led to their eventual extinction? But if belief itself was actually adaptive, then on what grounds are we well-advised to abandon a proven-adaptive belief now? And if it's neutral adaptively, then according to Darwin, evolutionary survival itself is "blind" to it, so can't account for it at all.

1 Adaptive advantage doesn't work in the crudely mechanistic way you seem to think.
2 There's no reason to think moral objectivism didn't have adaptive advantages for social groups.
3 A thing can be adaptively both advantageous and disadvantageous.
4 A thing that used to be adaptively advantageous can become disadvantageous. Religious superstition is an example.

#2 is no good. "Matter deeply" is neither a moral nor an adaptive principle. And it explains nothing, of course.

Nonsense, that things matter deeply to us has probably had huge adaptive advantage for a social species.

#3 just begs the whole question. It assumes we "tend to make" judgments, but gives us no explanation of why it's more adaptive to "tend to" delude ourselves at all.

Again, there are many ways in which our tendency to hold incorrect beliefs may have had - and have - adaptive advantages.

You thought Henry's question - 'If Reality is amoral why do some men insist otherwise?' - is a good one, and asked for an answer 'without implying it's "designed in" by anything or anyone'. So I offered explanations for the belief that reality is moral - the delusion that morality is objective.

...until they get to be postmodern, at which time they are to reject it completely, because, as moral relativists assure us, it's actually deceitful and maladaptive to believe in objective morality?

Not deceitful - it can't be deceitful to believe in something. And I don't think relativists necessarily believe moral objectivism has been or is maladaptive. And anyway, to reject moral objectivism isn't necessarily to be a moral relativist.

Yes, deceitful. It has to be, since, according to your theory, morality does not refer to anything objective -- the very definition of "deceitful."

No. Your grammar is incorrect here. A belief is an acceptance that something is the case or a factual assertion is true. And acceptance can't be deceitful. Being deceitful is usually an attribute of an agent - never of a belief.

But if one rejects objective morality, one is obviously a relativist...meaning that whatever one says "morality" might be, it has to be "relative" to societies, interest groups or individuals. So the only way one can avoid relativism, then, is by being illogical, and not really thinking through what "subjective" entails.

False, as it was when you first tried to peddle it, way back at the beginning of this discussion. And it's boring to have to show why it's false again - especially since you take no notice.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no use for anything Darwin said and do not buy the evolutionary fairy tale any more than I do the creationist fairy tale.

Interesting. What do you believe, if not evolutionism?

And as a follow-up, how does that belief explain the existence of this moral urge in human beings?

[Immanuel Can]

3 A thing can be adaptively both advantageous and disadvantageous.

True of things generally: but an evolved feature cannot be both evolutionarily adaptive and evolutionarily maladaptive. Darwin was quite clear that unless a development produces a distinct survival advantage, and does not create a survival disadvantage, it cannot be selected for.

Nonsense, that things matter deeply to us has probably had huge adaptive advantage for a social species.

Not at all, whether or not an adaptive feature "matters deeply" to an entity is strictly an emotional question. A feature that comes with no emotional attachment at all can be adaptive (as indeed most features obviously are), and one that produces emotions can easily be maladaptive. Very clearly, adding emotion doesn't help explain anything at all.

#3 just begs the whole question. It assumes we "tend to make" judgments, but gives us no explanation of why it's more adaptive to "tend to" delude ourselves at all.

Again, there are many ways in which our tendency to hold incorrect beliefs may have had - and have - adaptive advantages.[/quote]
If so, that creates the other problem: that we should not have reason to reject a belief that has proved adaptive so far, without thereby instantly jeopardizing our survival. If religion was once adaptive, as you insist, then explain why we ought to surrender that adaptive advantage.

Being deceitful is usually an attribute of an agent - never of a belief.

Ha. Then substitute the word "deceptive, "and this whole objection evaporates. Both agents and beliefs can be deceptive.

But if one rejects objective morality, one is obviously a relativist...meaning that whatever one says "morality" might be, it has to be "relative" to societies, interest groups or individuals. So the only way one can avoid relativism, then, is by being illogical, and not really thinking through what "subjective" entails.

False...

No, it's true. A non-objective belief is necessarily relative to the "agency" having it. Remove that agency (the person or culture) and the moral belief has nothing else upon which to exist, since it has no objective moral grounding at all. So it's relative to the agency.

You can deny it...but you can't escape the logic.