What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

How did you come to think that we are defending moral objectivism?

You told me (over and over and over).

I keep telling you over and over and over that in English, objective morality refers to absolute-objectivity.

[Atla]

How did you come to think that we are defending moral objectivism?

You told me (over and over and over).

I keep telling you over and over and over that in English, objective morality refers to absolute-objectivity.

Are you sure you aren't a chatbot? No human could possibly be so cognitively impaired to think that explaining what a position means, implies agreeing with that position.

[Skepdick]

Are you sure you aren't a chatbot? No human could possibly be so cognitively impaired to think that explaining what a position means, implies agreeing with that position.

Look! Another uncharitable strawman. What's new?

You are NEVER explaining what another position means.

You are ONLY "explaining" your (mis?)interpretation of what you believe another position means.

Because absolute knowledge/understanding is HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE. So you keep telling us; and so you keep ignoring.

[Skepdick]

In other words learning about our environment is empirical and intersubjective.

Someone who claims to absolutely know an empirical fact, such as is a moral tenet , is religious and is commonly called "a religious nut" for good reason .Religious nuttery is characterised by belief the Almighty favours any man not only with objective knowledge but also with absolute knowledge.

And that is the crux of Constructivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction. Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.

Morality is socially constructed, but it is objective in the constructivist/scientific notion of "objectivity".

[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.

So what? He was wrong about some aspects of evolution. His texts aren't holy writ. Debates go on.

Not the point, actually. The point is that it does not matter whether or not you take Darwin to be "holy writ" or not...the problem is that there is no gradualist (or evolutionary) account of how it can work at all, from any perspective. Somehow, believing in objective morality has to turn out to be an adaptive advantage that can produce survival, and also a maladaptive injury or fault that we allegedly do well to get rid of now.

But it's like the old saying, "Dance with the one that brung ya." If you got to this stage of evolution by gaining a survival advantage through believing in objective morality through religion, then it is surely incumbent on anyone who tells you that's now become a bad idea to say why something so helpful before is now not to be continued. To make a mistake about that is then to imperil the continued survival of the whole race of mankind.

If religion was once adaptive, as you insist, then explain why we ought to surrender that adaptive advantage.

As I pointed out - which you chose to ignore - what used to be advantageous can become disadvantageous - as has happened with religious and other kinds of supernatural superstition.

I heard you. But it wasn't a good answer. If that's how things are, then the responsibility is on the person who thinks so to prove it; because by his own account, up until now, believing in objective morality has been a great thing for mankind -- if it's turned toxic, then it's on the claimant to explain how that's come about.

It's like saying, "Up to today, not leaping off cliffs has kept us all alive; but now, our fear of heights is no longer good for our survival, so let's all go and jump off cliffs." If somebody said that, you'd be well within your rights to at least ask, "Are you sure?" and "How do you know that's true?" And if you knew that not leaping from cliffs had always been a good idea before, you ought to expect a great mass of proof before you tried to follow your advisor's advice.

Your premise ' if morality isn't objective, then it must be relative' doesn't follow

Prove that. Give me one example of a non-objective but non-relative moral precept.

But I believe slavery and the oppression of women are, were and will be morally wrong anywhere in the universe,

Is that it? And it's not just on this planet, but every possible planet as well? But not "universal," you say?

Why do you believe so? A skeptic might well point out that slavery is one of the oldest practices of the human race -- and today, there are more slaves in the world than at any time in history. They live in worse conditions, and suffer more than many of the old-style slaves did, being often child and sex slaves today. So the institution is even currently vigorous, having survived many attempts to extinguish it.

You and I may agree slavery is universally wrong, regardless of cultural acceptance and widespread, successful human practice. But I'm a moral objectivist, so I can say that. To make your own case, you need to show that a moral relativist has justification for his claim that slavery is not just "wrong now," or "wrong for me," or even "wrong for one culture," but also "wrong for everyone, for all time" -- but still not objectively wrong.

[RCSaunders]

Interesting. What do you believe, if not evolutionism?

Believe about what? I'm not being difficult, I truly do not know what it is you think I must have some belief about. I suspect it's, "origins," which I have no interest in other than an intellectual curiosity. It's totally unimportant to any actual issue of life.

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

There is no such thing as a, "moral urge," or any other predetermined, "urges," in human beings beyond the physiological drives (about which there are no choices). What human beings think, choose, and do is not determined by any inborn, "urges." Everything must be discovered, learned, and chosen.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

So what? He was wrong about some aspects of evolution. His texts aren't holy writ. Debates go on.

Not the point, actually. The point is that it does not matter whether or not you take Darwin to be "holy writ" or not...the problem is that there is no gradualist (or evolutionary) account of how it can work at all, from any perspective. Somehow, believing in objective morality has to turn out to be an adaptive advantage that can produce survival, and also a maladaptive injury or fault that we allegedly do well to get rid of now.

1 The application of evolutionary theory to social development, including the nature of beliefs, is hugely complicated and contested. Your approach is crude and simplistic.
2 The claim that belief in moral objectivity can't be accounted for by social evolution is false. But even if it were true, the conclusion that there must have been design is unjustified. The absence of a rational explanation doesn't make an irrational one viable.

But it's like the old saying, "Dance with the one that brung ya." If you got to this stage of evolution by gaining a survival advantage through believing in objective morality through religion, then it is surely incumbent on anyone who tells you that's now become a bad idea to say why something so helpful before is now not to be continued. To make a mistake about that is then to imperil the continued survival of the whole race of mankind.

Again, your analysis is hopelessly crude. Social advantage and disadvantage isn't the black-or-white matter you want it to be.

If religion was once adaptive, as you insist, then explain why we ought to surrender that adaptive advantage.

As I pointed out - which you chose to ignore - what used to be advantageous can become disadvantageous - as has happened with religious and other kinds of supernatural superstition.

I heard you. But it wasn't a good answer. If that's how things are, then the responsibility is on the person who thinks so to prove it; because by his own account, up until now, believing in objective morality has been a great thing for mankind -- if it's turned toxic, then it's on the claimant to explain how that's come about.

Simplistic. Moral objectivism has also been disastrous for mankind. One group's adaptive advantage has been another group's disadvantage.

It's like saying, "Up to today, not leaping off cliffs has kept us all alive; but now, our fear of heights is no longer good for our survival, so let's all go and jump off cliffs." If somebody said that, you'd be well within your rights to at least ask, "Are you sure?" and "How do you know that's true?" And if you knew that not leaping from cliffs had always been a good idea before, you ought to expect a great mass of proof before you tried to follow your advisor's advice.

Your premise ' if morality isn't objective, then it must be relative' doesn't follow

Prove that. Give me one example of a non-objective but non-relative moral precept.

Your burden of proof. You claim morality is either objective or relative. (Still, you used to say it's objective or non-existent, so perhaps that's progress.)

But I believe slavery and the oppression of women are, were and will be morally wrong anywhere in the universe,

Is that it? And it's not just on this planet, but every possible planet as well? But not "universal," you say?

What? I said I make that moral judgement universally - universally applicable.

Why do you believe so?

Do you ask because you want to know, or because you think I can't have any reason to believe so? I suspect it's a rhetorical question.

A skeptic might well point out that slavery is one of the oldest practices of the human race -- and today, there are more slaves in the world than at any time in history. They live in worse conditions, and suffer more than many of the old-style slaves did, being often child and sex slaves today. So the institution is even currently vigorous, having survived many attempts to extinguish it.

You and I may agree slavery is universally wrong, regardless of cultural acceptance and widespread, successful human practice. But I'm a moral objectivist, so I can say that. To make your own case, you need to show that a moral relativist has justification for his claim that slavery is not just "wrong now," or "wrong for me," or even "wrong for one culture," but also "wrong for everyone, for all time" -- but still not objectively wrong.

No, we do agree all that about slavery. And I'd guess our reasons for believing it are similar. The difference is that you think its immorality is a fact, and that that can only be because of a god's will. So you believe that if your god approved of slavery (as does the OT monster), then the rightness of slavery would be a fact. And I think that's morally degenerate.

Perhaps you could clarify your argument and present it syllogistically. After all, it's just Plantinga rehashed, so it shouldn't be hard.

[Skepdick]

No, we do agree all that about slavery. And I'd guess our reasons for believing it are similar. The difference is that you think its immorality is a fact, and that that can only be because of a god's will. So you believe that if your god approved of slavery (as does the OT monster), then the rightness of slavery would be a fact. And I think that's morally degenerate.

You aren't saying anything.

If you believed in the rightness of slavery then you wouldn't think it was "morally degenerate".

Why is it "degenerate" if a God commands it, but it's not degenerate if Peter thinks it?

[Immanuel Can]

I suspect it's, "origins," which I have no interest in other than an intellectual curiosity. It's totally unimportant to any actual issue of life.

Oh, I think that's obviously not going to be true. The "origin" of a thing determines its purpose, or it's possibility of having a purpose. If evolutionism is true, there is no actual "purpose" to a person's life...he may invent imaginary "purposes" for himself, but his existence is not itself "purposeful." On the other hand, if human beings are the creation of a personal God, then He most certainly would have had intentions and purposes in creating human beings in the first place. One's account of origins will instruct us which is thought to be the case.

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

There is no such thing as a, "moral urge,"...Everything must be discovered, learned, and chosen.

That explanation doesn't really help. "Choice" requires reasons to choose. Discovery requires the pre-existence of something to "discover," and "learning" is always about something that already exists. So all these words imply something prior.

And given that nobody has a "moral urge," you say, how do you explain the propensity of human beings to discuss a thing called "morality" at all? They seem to think it's very important, but you say they have no "urge" to do so? What then is the source of their moral awareness? How did it even come about, since, as you say, nothing "urges" or motivates it?

[Immanuel Can]

The application of evolutionary theory to social development, including the nature of beliefs, is hugely complicated and contested.

In this case, it's not even plausible. You yourself are unable to describe how a thing could go from being an important adaptive feature contributing to human survival, and suddenly turn into a detriment that works against our survival. You really would need to explain how that would happen.

2 The claim that belief in moral objectivity can't be accounted for by social evolution is false.

Great! Give us the account. How did moral objectivism come about, since you say it was never a true belief, but was still adaptive; and how did it cease to be adaptive, and become a detriment now? What changed between then and now?

As I pointed out - which you chose to ignore - what used to be advantageous can become disadvantageous - as has happened with religious and other kinds of supernatural superstition.

I heard you. But it wasn't a good answer. If that's how things are, then the responsibility is on the person who thinks so to prove it; because by his own account, up until now, believing in objective morality has been a great thing for mankind -- if it's turned toxic, then it's on the claimant to explain how that's come about.

Moral objectivism has also been disastrous for mankind. One group's adaptive advantage has been another group's disadvantage.

That's just the story of survival of the fittest, and so as an evolutionist, you should accept that as a matter of course; your own worldview would lead you to expect that, and not even think it's "wrong" in any sense.

But let's keep this easy, and leave it at the species level: how has moral objectivism been "adaptive" for mankind in the past, helping them to survive and procreate, and suddenly become such a bad idea that you want it discontinued? You're going to have to explain that.

Your premise ' if morality isn't objective, then it must be relative' doesn't follow

Prove that. Give me one example of a non-objective but non-relative moral precept.

Your burden of proof.

Yours, actually. Yours is the claim that there is such a thing as a non-objective but non-relative morality. If you can't even show one case, they you're surely bluffing.

But I believe slavery and the oppression of women are, were and will be morally wrong anywhere in the universe,

Is that it? And it's not just on this planet, but every possible planet as well? But not "universal," you say?

What? I said I make that moral judgement universally - universally applicable.

You mean that you want to "apply it," or to compel all sentient creatures in the universe to agree with you, or think they should anyway, even though you can't explain why they should? That seems utterly implausible: why should they listen to one guy who insists his own morality is merely subjective anyway?

Why do you believe so?

Do you ask because you want to know, or because you think I can't have any reason to believe so? I suspect it's a rhetorical question.

No, I'm giving you credit for possibly having a reason...but I can think of nothing in subjective moralizing that allows that slavery is objectively or universally wrong.

No, we do agree all that about slavery. And I'd guess our reasons for believing it are similar.

I'm pretty convinced they're not similar. I think we happen to arrive at the same conclusion, in this case, but that's incidental. I have a reason for getting there, but one I'm sure you don't share; and so far as I can see, you have only a whim...a subjective whim. You're just saying, "subjectively, Peter doesn't like slavery, or want anybody else to like it either." However, I'm pretty sure you don't have a rationale that allows you to speak for what should be the case for slavery world wide, or universally. If you do, I'm quite eager to hear it.

[Sculptor]

The application of evolutionary theory to social development, including the nature of beliefs, is hugely complicated and contested.

In this case, it's not even plausible. You yourself are unable to describe how a thing could go from being an important adaptive feature contributing to human survival, and suddenly turn into a detriment that works against our survival. You really would need to explain how that would happen.

2 The claim that belief in moral objectivity can't be accounted for by social evolution is false.

Great! Give us the account. How did moral objectivism come about,...

It only exists in your mind. It is like any other method of oppression; it only works IF you believe in it.

... since you say it was never a true belief, but was still adaptive; and how did it cease to be adaptive, and become a detriment now? What changed between then and now?

I heard you. But it wasn't a good answer. If that's how things are, then the responsibility is on the person who thinks so to prove it; because by his own account, up until now, believing in objective morality has been a great thing for mankind -- if it's turned toxic, then it's on the claimant to explain how that's come about.

Moral objectivism has also been disastrous for mankind. One group's adaptive advantage has been another group's disadvantage.

That's just the story of survival of the fittest, and so as an evolutionist, you should accept that as a matter of course; your own worldview would lead you to expect that, and not even think it's "wrong" in any sense.

But let's keep this easy, and leave it at the species level: how has moral objectivism been "adaptive" for mankind in the past, helping them to survive and procreate, and suddenly become such a bad idea that you want it discontinued? You're going to have to explain that.

Prove that. Give me one example of a non-objective but non-relative moral precept.

Your burden of proof.

Yours, actually. Yours is the claim that there is such a thing as a non-objective but non-relative morality. If you can't even show one case, they you're surely bluffing.

Is that it? And it's not just on this planet, but every possible planet as well? But not "universal," you say?

What? I said I make that moral judgement universally - universally applicable.

You mean that you want to "apply it," or to compel all sentient creatures in the universe to agree with you, or think they should anyway, even though you can't explain why they should? That seems utterly implausible: why should they listen to one guy who insists his own morality is merely subjective anyway?

Why do you believe so?

Do you ask because you want to know, or because you think I can't have any reason to believe so? I suspect it's a rhetorical question.

No, I'm giving you credit for possibly having a reason...but I can think of nothing in subjective moralizing that allows that slavery is objectively or universally wrong.

No, we do agree all that about slavery. And I'd guess our reasons for believing it are similar.

I'm pretty convinced they're not similar. I think we happen to arrive at the same conclusion, in this case, but that's incidental. I have a reason for getting there, but one I'm sure you don't share; and so far as I can see, you have only a whim...a subjective whim. You're just saying, "subjectively, Peter doesn't like slavery, or want anybody else to like it either." However, I'm pretty sure you don't have a rationale that allows you to speak for what should be the case for slavery world wide, or universally. If you do, I'm quite eager to hear it.

[Immanuel Can]

It only exists in your mind. It is like any other method of oppression; it only works IF you believe in it.[/color]

Ah, Sculpy.

Once again, you are the man, and wisdom will die with you.

[Sculptor]

It only exists in your mind. It is like any other method of oppression; it only works IF you believe in it.[/color]

Ah, Sculpy.

Once again, you are the man, and wisdom will die with you.

Nothing to say for yourself, as usual.

[RCSaunders]

I suspect it's, "origins," which I have no interest in other than an intellectual curiosity. It's totally unimportant to any actual issue of life.

Oh, I think that's obviously not going to be true. The "origin" of a thing determines its purpose ...

Nothing has a purpose just because it exists. Purpose only pertains to ends, objectives, or goals which only human beings have. Rocks, rivers, chemicals, and bears have no purpose except whatever purpose human beings make of them.

Intrinsicism, whether of values or purpose, is mystic nonsense, suitable for witch doctors, magicians, spiritualists, and religionists but is without either scientific or rational foundation.

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

There is no such thing as a, "moral urge,"...Everything must be discovered, learned, and chosen.

That explanation doesn't really help. "Choice" requires reasons to choose. Discovery requires the pre-existence of something to "discover," and "learning" is always about something that already exists. So all these words imply something prior.

What's the point? There is existence, that which one is directly conscious of, to learn about. I have no idea why you call it, "pre-existent." It doesn't exist before anything. Unless you call the fact you must crack and egg open before you can fry some kind of a priorism.

And given that nobody has a "moral urge," you say, how do you explain the propensity of human beings to discuss a thing called "morality" at all? They seem to think it's very important, but you say they have no "urge" to do so? What then is the source of their moral awareness? How did it even come about, since, as you say, nothing "urges" or motivates it?

I've already answered that. Perhaps if I repeat it you can get it into long term memory. The motivation is:

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.

There is absolutely no limit to the absurd things human beings can become obsessed with, especially if it promises easy virtue and a guarantee of an unearned eternal life, and there are endless numbers of con artists in the world who spend all their time coming up with new answers to one's every moral question or the latest "six secrets of total success in everything." There's no mystery except to those who believe in intrinsicism.

[Immanuel Can]

I suspect it's, "origins," which I have no interest in other than an intellectual curiosity. It's totally unimportant to any actual issue of life.

Oh, I think that's obviously not going to be true. The "origin" of a thing determines its purpose ...

Nothing has a purpose just because it exists. Purpose only pertains to ends, objectives, or goals which only human beings have. Rocks, rivers, chemicals, and bears have no purpose except whatever purpose human beings make of them.

Actually, human beings can't GIVE a thing a purpose. They can only "have their personal purposes" for a thing. But if I were to say that my purposeful you was to peel me grapes, that would not imply that your actual purpose was to peel me grapes. What human beings make up by way of "purposing" is often complete nonsense.

And in such a world as you describe, the very existence of human beings is itself without purpose -- nothing wanted it to happen, and it happened from nothing, with no end in view. There is no objective purpose to such an existence...only the contingent "purposing" of men, which is no more significant than they are, in the grand cosmic scheme of things.

But you have not said what you think is our origin. You have said it's not evolution, so you must have something in mind, even if only enough to know what it's "not." And you getting that right would be crucial to whether or not what you describe is the case or not. So, whence do we come?