Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion.

A "delusion" is, by definition, a thing you feel or imagine is real but isn't. If you just feel morality, but there's no real entity to which the feeling corresponds, then that's a "delusion."

Is the love you have for your wife a delusion, or do you think of it as one?

Of course not: but I'm a moral objectivist.

Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

My wife exists. She's objectively there. If I have feelings about her, then that makes sense.

If it prevents me from stealing from you, wouldn't you rather I didn't drop it?

Yes, but that's a different question. It might suit my purposes for other people to believe in the delusion of morality -- if for no other reason, than that I didn't have to, and could strategize accordingly. But that wouldn't make morality real, just a delusion I found served my turn.

And that's exactly what Nietzsche thought was the case: morality is nothing but a power-play by some people against others.

Our conscience obligates us

It cannot. A feeling cannot create an obligation. Feelings are often unwarranted, confused, misplaced and errant. But even were they not, they don't issue in duties.

Perhaps I should have said our conscience compels us, or at least persuades us.

Well, but that conscience could be no more real that my childhood fear of the bogeyman under the bed. Maybe it's just a thing we should all "get over." How can I tell which way it is, since conscience is just a feeling? I have all kinds of feelings, maybe; but unless they correspond to something real I can refer to in order to check them out, maybe I'm just fooling myself.

I can't say to you, "You owe me £10 because I feel you do."

Why not? You have said much more preposterous things than that.

I mean, "I can't say it, and have reason to expect to make it stick." If you think otherwise, forward £10 immediately, please.

I don't believe that you never have moral feelings of your own that you act upon,

Of course I do.

... and are independant of God.

The incorrect ones are. The correct ones always correspond to God's intentions.

You couldn't possibly know what God would want you to do in absolutely every conceivable situation.

Not beforehand, no...because I can't foresee every situation that will come to me. But I can ask for His wisdom in the particular circumstances in which I find myself, and refer to the solid principles laid down in His Word.

I have reason to care because I love and respect God; and it's not loving and respectful to abuse His property...which is what we ultimately all are.

But what about those of us who have no belief in God?

Then they are still rightfully God's property...they're just his rebellious property.

Surely you would prefer it if we had an alternative means of arriving at moral judgements. If that alternative means results in my condemning rape as strongly as you do, why would you try to negate it?

I'm concerned about the durability of judgments that the actors believe to be founded on nothing but a feeling. If their moral judgment is just a feeling, then when they feel revulsion at Jews, they murder six million or so.

I don't want to trivialise morality, but our preferences regarding moral values come to us in much the same way as our preferences for the clothes we wear, and the food we eat. We take on the prevailing ones of our own society. That's much how it works with religion, too.

If that were true, then how do people ever convert? If what you're saying were true, then a Muslim could never become an Atheist, a Jew could never become a Buddhist, or an agnostic could not decide to become a Christian. But if these things happen (and we know they do, and rather often) it must also be obvious that something not socially-deterministic is involved.

I don't see the logic of your argument.

It's pretty plain: if one's religion or morality is simply socially dictated, then no person would ever be at variance with their social environment on moral matters. You might wear platform shoes today, and kaftans tomorrow; but it would always, only be something consonant with the range of options your society advocated at that moment. You would not be able to violate social mores, because there would be no place but society from which you could get your mores.

But people convert, or behave differently than their social environment dicates, all the time. So morality is not determined by social environment.

Well I suppose it's a case of whether we are realistic and see morality as the biological artifact that it is,...

Wait. You said at first that morality is a product of socialization. Then you said it is an artifact of biology. Those are very different claims. If the former is true, morality will vary by society; but if it's the latter, then morality will be as uniform as biology.

Which one do you think is correct, or neither?

Our capacity for having a sense of morality is biological, but we enter the world with it more or less empty. It is what we fill that capacity with that we derive from our social environment. This is how it comes to be that all societies have systems of morality, but the nature of that morality can differ between them.

Oh. So morality itself is social, and the biological only gives us the potential for *some* kind of morality. I see.

The thing is; people who do not believe in God still have a sense of morality, and often share mostly the same moral values as those who do believe.

They do. You're right.

And there are two possible explanations: one is that we are all somehow simply being programmed into it, without really being able to think it through. The other is that conscience is a universal capacity established by God as inherent to all of us, and it actually takes a fair bit of re-programming to mangle it; we all instinctively know what "right" and "wrong" are...though not infallibly.

You'll go with the first, of course; and I'll go with the second.

Like a lot of people, I roughly know most of the ten comandments, but my moral values cover much more than that. If I didn't form those values by knowing what God wants, then God is obviously not the source of them.

Not so obvious.

You were raised in the one culture that perhaps more than any other was already infused with a particular set of Christian-like values. You even have a national "church" to promulgate them, and call your official head of state, "the defender of the Anglican faith." So there was an awful lot of post-Christian moralizing in the society in which you grew up...but it's decaying fast now, as you can observe.

Our moral sense has nothing to do with God, and you know it doesn't.

Oh, I disagree. It has everything to do with Him. We wouldn't even have it without Him.

Morality does not depend on God for its existence.

But if there's no God, then it "exists" only in the form of an inexplicable, unjustifiable, collective delusion, an odd accident of evolution-gone-off-the-realist-track, a thing people happen to think but which just isn't true, and in nothing more substantial than that.

[Harbal]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion.

A "delusion" is, by definition, a thing you feel or imagine is real but isn't. If you just feel morality, but there's no real entity to which the feeling corresponds, then that's a "delusion."
Morality is the feeling, and the feeling exists, so it isn't a delusion. I think your belief in God is a delusion, because there is no entity to which that belief corresponds, but I'm not mean enough to say that makes you incapable of practicing morality.

Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

My wife exists. She's objectively there. If I have feelings about her, then that makes sense.

Why does it make sense to love your wife just because she exists; what are your rational grounds for saying that?

Besides, that is a false analogy, if not a dishonest one. Love is the feelin, your wife the object, and in the comparison, morality would be the feeling and the situation it related to would be the object. A situation that is objectively occurring.

Perhaps I should have said our conscience compels us, or at least persuades us.

Well, but that conscience could be no more real that my childhood fear of the bogeyman under the bed. Maybe it's just a thing we should all "get over." How can I tell which way it is, since conscience is just a feeling? I have all kinds of feelings, maybe; but unless they correspond to something real I can refer to in order to check them out, maybe I'm just fooling myself.

Say you were to cheat on your wife; would your conscience be more troubled about defying God, or betraying your wife? I ask because, in your scheme, conscience means nothing, it is your duty to God that matters, so any hurt your wife might feel should be of no importance to you. Would that be the case?

You couldn't possibly know what God would want you to do in absolutely every conceivable situation.

Not beforehand, no...because I can't foresee every situation that will come to me. But I can ask for His wisdom in the particular circumstances in which I find myself, and refer to the solid principles laid down in His Word.

I know that many words that claim to be those of God have been laid down, but as far as I'm aware, they were actually laid down by human beings, and we know how unreliable human beings can sometimes be.

But what about those of us who have no belief in God?

Then they are still rightfully God's property...they're just his rebellious property.

That is inadmissible. We are not arguing about the existence of God, and it hasn't been established whether he does, or does not, exist. What we are arguing about is whether morality exists independently of God.

Surely you would prefer it if we had an alternative means of arriving at moral judgements. If that alternative means results in my condemning rape as strongly as you do, why would you try to negate it?

I'm concerned about the durability of judgments that the actors believe to be founded on nothing but a feeling. If their moral judgment is just a feeling, then when they feel revulsion at Jews, they murder six million or so.

Just because the the nature of the morality I am arguing for might not seem reliable, it does not mean that it isn't the case. But religious morality is no more reliable; all it takes is for a religious leader to reinterpret "the words of God", and hey presto.

I don't see the logic of your argument.

It's pretty plain: if one's religion or morality is simply socially dictated, then no person would ever be at variance with their social environment on moral matters. You might wear platform shoes today, and kaftans tomorrow; but it would always, only be something consonant with the range of options your society advocated at that moment. You would not be able to violate social mores, because there would be no place but society from which you could get your mores.

But people convert, or behave differently than their social environment dicates, all the time. So morality is not determined by social environment.

I'm sorry, but I don't even see that as an argument. I just don't see the logic of it.

Our capacity for having a sense of morality is biological, but we enter the world with it more or less empty. It is what we fill that capacity with that we derive from our social environment. This is how it comes to be that all societies have systems of morality, but the nature of that morality can differ between them.

Oh. So morality itself is social, and the biological only gives us the potential for *some* kind of morality. I see.

Yes, we are born with a capacity for morality, in a similar way to how we are born with a capacity to like music. But we are not born with a set of moral values; we aquire those as we go through life. Neither are we born with a particular taste in music, that, too, comes later.

Morality does not depend on God for its existence.

But if there's no God, then it "exists" only in the form of an inexplicable, unjustifiable, collective delusion, an odd accident of evolution-gone-off-the-realist-track, a thing people happen to think but which just isn't true, and in nothing more substantial than that.

No, evolution didn't go off the track when it naturally selected morality into us. Morality is essential to our social functioning, and our social functioning is essential to our success as a species.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion.

A "delusion" is, by definition, a thing you feel or imagine is real but isn't. If you just feel morality, but there's no real entity to which the feeling corresponds, then that's a "delusion."
Morality is the feeling, and the feeling exists, so it isn't a delusion. I think your belief in God is a delusion, because there is no entity to which that belief corresponds, but I'm not mean enough to say that makes you incapable of practicing morality.

Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

My wife exists. She's objectively there. If I have feelings about her, then that makes sense.

Why does it make sense to love your wife just because she exists; what are your rational grounds for saying that?

I didn't say, "I love her because she exists." I have other reasons, of course. But if she did NOT actually exist, I could not coherently say that I love her. I would be showing I was confused or mentally ill.

Likewise, if objective moral value does not actually exist, then our moral values are like loving a non-existent person: it's just as irrational to do it, and just as incoherent to claim that one does.

Love is the feelin, your wife the object, and in the comparison, morality would be the feeling and the situation it related to would be the object. A situation that is objectively occurring.

This falls afoul of what Atheist David Hume pointed out. There's no logical connection between saying, "Situation X exists," and saying, "I owe it to feel in way A about situation X." The former is merely an "is," a statement of empirical fact; but empirical facts,by themselves, do not imply values. There's no specific reason why I can't feel in way B, C, D or Z about situation X.

So there's no morality entailed there.

Perhaps I should have said our conscience compels us, or at least persuades us.

Well, but that conscience could be no more real that my childhood fear of the bogeyman under the bed. Maybe it's just a thing we should all "get over." How can I tell which way it is, since conscience is just a feeling? I have all kinds of feelings, maybe; but unless they correspond to something real I can refer to in order to check them out, maybe I'm just fooling myself.

Say you were to cheat on your wife; would your conscience be more troubled about defying God, or betraying your wife?

Honestly? I would be ashamed of betraying my wife; but I'd be far, far more concerned about how I had treated God. My treatment of my wife is a temporal wronging, and she might even recover from it...my treatment of God, in that case, has eternal ramifications and affects my relationship with God Himself.

I could point out Biblically, too, that this is the objectively right set of priorities...but I'll spare you that, unless you're interested.

You couldn't possibly know what God would want you to do in absolutely every conceivable situation.

Not beforehand, no...because I can't foresee every situation that will come to me. But I can ask for His wisdom in the particular circumstances in which I find myself, and refer to the solid principles laid down in His Word.

I know that many words that claim to be those of God have been laid down, but as far as I'm aware, they were actually laid down by human beings, and we know how unreliable human beings can sometimes be.

Agreed. So only if they were the ACTUAL words of God would it matter.

But what about those of us who have no belief in God?

Then they are still rightfully God's property...they're just his rebellious property.

That is inadmissible.

To whom? Certainly not to God. And it makes no difference at all what the individual believes, unless what he believes is true.

We are not arguing about the existence of God, and it hasn't been established whether he does, or does not, exist. What we are arguing about is whether morality exists independently of God.

And I'm saying it doesn't. But then, I'm a moral objectivist.

...all it takes is for a religious leader to reinterpret "the words of God", and hey presto.

Very true. And that's why each man's own conscience is sacred. If you violate your personal conscience before God, as you consider His word yourself, there is no excuse to be found in saying, "I was obeying the guy with the flashy, pointy hat."

I don't see the logic of your argument.

It's pretty plain: if one's religion or morality is simply socially dictated, then no person would ever be at variance with their social environment on moral matters. You might wear platform shoes today, and kaftans tomorrow; but it would always, only be something consonant with the range of options your society advocated at that moment. You would not be able to violate social mores, because there would be no place but society from which you could get your mores.

But people convert, or behave differently than their social environment dicates, all the time. So morality is not determined by social environment.

I'm sorry, but I don't even see that as an argument. I just don't see the logic of it.

Social determinism implies people always follow the morals they get from their socieites. But we can see that many do not. So social determinism is false.

Morality does not depend on God for its existence.

But if there's no God, then it "exists" only in the form of an inexplicable, unjustifiable, collective delusion, an odd accident of evolution-gone-off-the-realist-track, a thing people happen to think but which just isn't true, and in nothing more substantial than that.

No, evolution didn't go off the track when it naturally selected morality into us. Morality is essential to our social functioning, and our social functioning is essential to our success as a species.[/quote]
But evolutionism is not concerned with the survival of species...only of individuals, on account of their fitness. If the species survives, that's incidental; and, as the story goes, evolution wipes out both individuals and species from time to time, without any morality being implicated in it so doing.

Why are there no dodo birds? Because none of the individuals were sufficiently adapted to survive. They are gone...the individuals and the species together. What does evolution care? Nothing. it would later wipe out the great auk and the passenger pidgeon, too.

What was the moral status of the dodo extinction? None, if evolution is how things happened.

What is the moral status of your extinction, or that of the entire human race? Evolution has no opinion about that. It is not trying to prevent it, though it might be said to be working toward causing it, as it does toward the extinction of all obsolete species.

[Harbal]

A "delusion" is, by definition, a thing you feel or imagine is real but isn't. If you just feel morality, but there's no real entity to which the feeling corresponds, then that's a "delusion."
Morality is the feeling, and the feeling exists, so it isn't a delusion. I think your belief in God is a delusion, because there is no entity to which that belief corresponds, but I'm not mean enough to say that makes you incapable of practicing morality.




My wife exists. She's objectively there. If I have feelings about her, then that makes sense.

Why does it make sense to love your wife just because she exists; what are your rational grounds for saying that?

I didn't say, "I love her because she exists." I have other reasons, of course. But if she did NOT actually exist, I could not coherently say that I love her. I would be showing I was confused or mentally ill.

Likewise, if objective moral value does not actually exist, then our moral values are like loving a non-existent person: it's just as irrational to do it, and just as incoherent to claim that one does.

But morality, itself, does objectively exist, it is only moral values that are subjective. If that contradicts anything I said earlier, I will own up to it, as I have probably said that morality, overall, only has subjective existence. Most people do have a sense of morality, so I am prepared to accept that morality, as a phenomenon, does objectively exist. The moral values I hold to only exist within me, making them basically subjective opinion, but why is it irrational to act on my opinion? It makes more sense to me to act on my own opinion than to act on yours, or worse still to act on the opinion of an entity whom I do not even believe in. Tell me, would it be rational for me to comply to the supposed demands of an entity that I do not believe exists? Morality is important to me; I want to have moral standards, so why does it not make sense for me to construct them for myself?

Love is the feelin, your wife the object, and in the comparison, morality would be the feeling and the situation it related to would be the object. A situation that is objectively occurring.

This falls afoul of what Atheist David Hume pointed out.

Knowing you, and how you operate, it probably doesn't, but it doesn't matter. Whatever point I was making, just forget it if you think David Hume would object.

Say you were to cheat on your wife; would your conscience be more troubled about defying God, or betraying your wife?

Honestly? I would be ashamed of betraying my wife; but I'd be far, far more concerned about how I had treated God.

Fair enough, and I'm sure most wives would be fine with that.

My treatment of my wife is a temporal wronging, and she might even recover from it...my treatment of God, in that case, has eternal ramifications and affects my relationship with God Himself.

So don't you think God would recover from it? I must say, your wife must be an exeptional woman if she is more resilient than God. You were a fool to cheat on her; what were you thinking of, man?!

I could point out Biblically, too, that this is the objectively right set of priorities...but I'll spare you that, unless you're interested.

I'm not remotely interested, so yes, please do spare me.

Then they are still rightfully God's property...they're just his rebellious property.

That is inadmissible.

To whom? Certainly not to God.

To me.

..all it takes is for a religious leader to reinterpret "the words of God", and hey presto.

Very true. And that's why each man's own conscience is sacred. If you violate your personal conscience before God, as you consider His word yourself, there is no excuse to be found in saying, "I was obeying the guy with the flashy, pointy hat."

Can't be bothered with that.

I'm sorry, but I don't even see that as an argument. I just don't see the logic of it.

Social determinism implies people always follow the morals they get from their socieites. But we can see that many do not. So social determinism is false.

Strike three, and OUT.

No, evolution didn't go off the track when it naturally selected morality into us. Morality is essential to our social functioning, and our social functioning is essential to our success as a species.

But evolutionism is not concerned with the survival of species...only of individuals,

No, that is incorrect, as is just about everything I've ever seen you write about evolution. I sometimes think you have a vested interest in rubbishing the whole theory; I can't think why.

[Immanuel Can]

But morality, itself, does objectively exist,

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality. If it were otherwise, you'd be a moral objectivist.

I am prepared to accept that morality, as a phenomenon, does objectively exist.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought. "As a phenomenon," which means "as a thing people do," the legitimacy of what they do not being affirmed at all.

Tell me, would it be rational for me to comply to the supposed demands of an entity that I do not believe exists?

No, it would not be rational. It could still be prudent, but not rational.

If I don't believe that cancer is an entity that exists, it doesn't mean I can't still get cancer.

Morality is important to me; I want to have moral standards, so why does it not make sense for me to construct them for myself?

Well, because then you always know that they were only something you created for yourself. You'd have no obligation to them at all -- no reward for maintaining them, and no loss for abandoning them. And they sure wouldn't be anything useful in coordinating a society, setting up a system of justice, establishing human rights, and so on, since not only you but anyone else would have no obligation to them.

Say you were to cheat on your wife; would your conscience be more troubled about defying God, or betraying your wife?

Honestly? I would be ashamed of betraying my wife; but I'd be far, far more concerned about how I had treated God.

Fair enough, and I'm sure most wives would be fine with that.

Well, whether wives would be fine with it is, perhaps a relevant concern, but really only a secondary issue. The Person we ultimately answer to is not our wives.

My treatment of my wife is a temporal wronging, and she might even recover from it...my treatment of God, in that case, has eternal ramifications and affects my relationship with God Himself.

So don't you think God would recover from it?

God is holy, and God is all-powerful. That means He is perfectly righteous and never actually has to put up with ill-treatment or injustice, the minute He decides to address it. He'd be quite capable of dealing with the consequences.

We wouldn't.

[Harbal]

But morality, itself, does objectively exist,

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality. If it were otherwise, you'd be a moral objectivist.

I'm sure you must know by now that I don't hold with isms and ists.

Tell me, would it be rational for me to comply to the supposed demands of an entity that I do not believe exists?

No, it would not be rational. It could still be prudent, but not rational.

If I don't believe that cancer is an entity that exists, it doesn't mean I can't still get cancer.

It can easily be shown that cancer exists, so you would rather foolish to believe it doesn't. On the other hand, no proof, or even evidence, has ever been produced for the most extraordinary and significant claim that has ever been made, which should be a wake up call to even you.

Morality is important to me; I want to have moral standards, so why does it not make sense for me to construct them for myself?

Well, because then you always know that they were only something you created for yourself. You'd have no obligation to them at all -- no reward for maintaining them,

You are a Christian, so you wouldn't know this, as a pat on the head from God is the only reward you are intersted in, but for those like me, virtue is its own reward.

Well, whether wives would be fine with it is, perhaps a relevant concern, but really only a secondary issue. The Person we ultimately answer to is not our wives.

I can't help feeling that the feelings and wellfare of real people should take priority over those of imaginary entities, myself. But that's just me.

God is holy, and God is all-powerful.

Above all, God is fictitious, which is his greatest power, for it is on that all his other powers depend.

[Atla]

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality.

Here's the big moral dilemma: the greater good requires that IC remain a religious nutcase, and that he also remain oblivious to the fact that most people do have consciences. Otherwise he could become a lot more harmful.

[Peter Holmes]

Evidence for the intellectual and moral rot caused by theistic religion:

'My team's god - alone of the thousands invented by our ancestors - exists, is as my team describes it, and is morally good.'

'Your team's god is an idol, which I know because my team's god is real.'

'If there were no god, then there could be no morality.'

'What my team's god says is morally right and wrong is morally right and wrong. So morality is objective.'

How long must our species continue suffering from the consequences of this delusion?

[FlashDangerpants]

But morality, itself, does objectively exist,

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality. If it were otherwise, you'd be a moral objectivist.

The following things exist as human social practices, present in all human cultures, but significantly differing between them: Manners, Customs, Fashions, Morals, Arts. It would be equally absurd to say that any one of them exists as "an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality" as for any other. If you want to say it of them all as a collective, then sure, it's a weird and pointless objection but you are welcome to it.

[Immanuel Can]

But morality, itself, does objectively exist,

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality. If it were otherwise, you'd be a moral objectivist.

The following things exist as human social practices...

That doesn't help. It simply turns the explanation "social," but leaves it both relative and illusory.

Prostitution, slavery and graft exist as social practices, and always have. But merely observing that doesn't get us a step closer to saying what their moral status is. If I "believe in" slavery, and if my society practices it, we can still legitimately ask questions about whether we should be doing that. And there's nothing in the claim, "Well, that's what my society does," that makes it a morally justified practice.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you mean, "Belief in morality exists," i.e. as an odd psychological phenomenon, not as a reality. If it were otherwise, you'd be a moral objectivist.

The following things exist as human social practices...

That doesn't help. It simply turns the explanation "social," but leaves it both relative and illusory.

Prostitution, slavery and graft exist as social practices, and always have. But merely observing that doesn't get us a step closer to saying what their moral status is. If I "believe in" slavery, and if my society practices it, we can still legitimately ask questions about whether we should be doing that. And there's nothing in the claim, "Well, that's what my society does," that makes it a morally justified practice.

That's a problem for you, but I'm not a moral realist so "not real enough" isn't a problem for me.

[Immanuel Can]

The following things exist as human social practices...

That doesn't help. It simply turns the explanation "social," but leaves it both relative and illusory.

Prostitution, slavery and graft exist as social practices, and always have. But merely observing that doesn't get us a step closer to saying what their moral status is. If I "believe in" slavery, and if my society practices it, we can still legitimately ask questions about whether we should be doing that. And there's nothing in the claim, "Well, that's what my society does," that makes it a morally justified practice.

That's a problem for you, but I'm not a moral realist so "not real enough" isn't a problem for me.

Actually, it IS a problem for you, if you insist that moral language means anything at all, or that any morality at all (such as "Thou shalt not enslave," or "Thou shalt not rape") should hold for everybody. But it's not a problem for a moral nihilist -- and moral nihilism is where personal or social moral relativism have to end up, so long as they are held consistently.

[FlashDangerpants]

That doesn't help. It simply turns the explanation "social," but leaves it both relative and illusory.

Prostitution, slavery and graft exist as social practices, and always have. But merely observing that doesn't get us a step closer to saying what their moral status is. If I "believe in" slavery, and if my society practices it, we can still legitimately ask questions about whether we should be doing that. And there's nothing in the claim, "Well, that's what my society does," that makes it a morally justified practice.

That's a problem for you, but I'm not a moral realist so "not real enough" isn't a problem for me.

Actually, it IS a problem for you, if you insist that moral language means anything at all, or that any morality at all (such as "Thou shalt not enslave," or "Thou shalt not rape") should hold for everybody. But it's not a problem for a moral nihilist -- and moral nihilism is where personal or social moral relativism have to end up, so long as they are held consistently.

What a weird and nonsensical claim. Fashion only needs to exist as a cultural artifact for me to say "you are wearing silly trousers" and for that to be completely meaningful. There doesn't need to be a cosmic fact of the matter.

Same goes for manners, they do things a bit oddly in France and the Germans are overly direct. I can say these things without needing to consult any grand universal truths.

Same goes for morals.

[Immanuel Can]

Fashion only needs to exist as a cultural artifact for me to say "you are wearing silly trousers" and for that to be completely meaningful.

But it's only trivial. You're not requiring anybody to have to agree. You're not even stating that you personally wouldn't change your opinion one day.

But morality requires more. It requires people to agree, and that they agree durably, and that they feel duty toward the particular moral assertion in question; because it's the foundation of all our common social projects, whether in commerce, education, justice, distribution, mutual respect, welfare, domestic life, and so on.

So "fashion-level" thinking is just useless when it comes to creating such common projects. Would we be satisfied to say no more than, "Your slavery/rape looks silly to me?" It would be "meaningful": but would it be enough?

[Immanuel Can]

Evidence for the intellectual and moral rot caused by theistic religion...

Hey, Peter! You're back!

Great. I've got a question for you.

How about explaining how YOU would exposit moral language. The task is this: make this syllogism an accurate reflection of what YOU understand by morality. ("Boo" is the Frege-Geach summary of moral emotivism, of course. I know you're not an emotivist, so replace "boo" with the quality you would say, according to your own particular view of morality. And if you don't like the word "killing," you can replace it with "rape" or "slavery," or something else you think worth prohibiting.)

P1: Killing is boo.
P2: If Killing is boo, then getting your brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your brother to kill is wrong.

P.S. -- If you don't like the word "wrong," then an emotivist would replace it with "boo" as well. That would be circular, but at least a fair reflection of emotivism.

Can you make the syllogism make sense?