What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I consider pleasure and pain to be qualia, they are merely different qualia than red and yellow for example. In that sense, they are objective occurences, they objectively exist. I agree they alone are fundamental to morality.

But when pleasure and pain are part of a highly complex organism with a highly complex nervous system, such as humans, it becomes highly subjective, what is pleasurable and what is painful. So when it comes to moral systems shared by many people, we always go from objective to subjective morality, where we choose to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the group, but that will go against what is good to some members of the group.

For example the sadistic psychopath can mentally and physically torture other people, which is his main source of pleasure. The moral system can deem this kind of pleasure to be immoral.

Kicking your own back.
This is due to narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking.

That is why pleasure and pain cannot be fundamental to morality.
Killing humans as pleasure could arise from a genocidal dictator who could kill billions.

A certain religion condone killing non-believers for the pleasure from 72 virgins; its followers when having access to cheap WMDs will not hesitate to press the red button to exterminate the human species [will get additional merit], since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth.

Good Lord
When the group = the human species, then maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the group means that fundamentalist Islam needs to be disbanded, and dictatorships should be prevented from existing, because there's a good chance that eventually they will get hold of WMDs and start nuking the planet, release new killer viruses etc. When many members of the group die or get radiation poisoning, and the world collapses, that's the opposite of maximizing pleasure for the group.

You unnecessarily invented a nonsensical alternative version of morality because you couldn't see the big picture?

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

[Atla]

Kicking your own back.
This is due to narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking.

That is why pleasure and pain cannot be fundamental to morality.
Killing humans as pleasure could arise from a genocidal dictator who could kill billions.

A certain religion condone killing non-believers for the pleasure from 72 virgins; its followers when having access to cheap WMDs will not hesitate to press the red button to exterminate the human species [will get additional merit], since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth.

Good Lord
When the group = the human species, then maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the group means that fundamentalist Islam needs to be disbanded, and dictatorships should be prevented from existing, because there's a good chance that eventually they will get hold of WMDs and start nuking the planet, release new killer viruses etc. When many members of the group die or get radiation poisoning, and the world collapses, that's the opposite of maximizing pleasure for the group.

You unnecessarily invented a nonsensical alternative version of morality because you couldn't see the big picture?

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

[Veritas Aequitas]

Good Lord
When the group = the human species, then maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the group means that fundamentalist Islam needs to be disbanded, and dictatorships should be prevented from existing, because there's a good chance that eventually they will get hold of WMDs and start nuking the planet, release new killer viruses etc. When many members of the group die or get radiation poisoning, and the world collapses, that's the opposite of maximizing pleasure for the group.

You unnecessarily invented a nonsensical alternative version of morality because you couldn't see the big picture?

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

Who ARE YOU to decide what is pleasure for others?
Morality is primarily an individual affair and moral progress manifest only when each individual personal moral competence is improved.

You are that ignorant?

• Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
  https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

[Atla]

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

Who ARE YOU to decide what is pleasure for others?
Morality is primarily an individual affair and moral progress manifest only when each individual personal moral competence is improved.

You are that ignorant?

• Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
  https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

How can morality be primarily an individual affair, when it's primarily about how to treat other individuals. Your natural lack of empathy is showing.

And how can you take the blatantly evil moral stance that since no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others, in other words morality isn't objective, people therefore also can't decide to prefer a certain standpoint over others.

[Atla]

The best hope that humanity has left is to come together and agree on a certain moral standpoint, that will maximize the net welfare of humanity and the biosphere, while securing a sustainable future. Come together and agree on a morality that can be treated as it was kinda objective, but is of course fundamentally subjective in nature, and is also fundamentally based on pleasure and pain and empathy, conscience.

We will probably destroy the planet in 20-30 years, and the above approach is our best bet to stop it. But I still wouldn't give it more than 20-30% chance of succeeding, as there isn't enough time left to make any significant changes, and isn't enough international agreement to force such changes.

But simply lying to people doesn't work in the 21st century anymore, people can just see that morality isn't fundamentally objective, and will know they are being deceived, and will most likely reject that approach. Not basing morality on.. well, morality, also doesn't work. In my opinon, VA's approach would just waste more decades and also create a lot more social chaos across the planet, which I'd say would decrease our long-term survival chances to below 10%.

So in my opinion, many people's gut reaction that pushing objective morality is a bad approach, is actually morally justified.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, it has been argued that 'having a reason' can be no justification for holding a moral opinion - but that morality is objective because my team's invented god says X is morally right and Y is morally wrong - as though that isn't 'having a reason' for holding a moral opinion.

With reasoning of this calibre, it's a wonder moral objectivism hasn't swept the field. Game over.

[Skepdick]

Elsewhere, it has been argued that 'having a reason' can be no justification for holding a moral opinion - but that morality is objective because my team's invented god says X is morally right and Y is morally wrong - as though that isn't 'having a reason' for holding a moral opinion.

With reasoning of this calibre, it's a wonder moral objectivism hasn't swept the field. Game over.

Mean while the idiot above rejected the soundness of

P1. Murder is wrong.
...

[FlashDangerpants]

Elsewhere, it has been argued that 'having a reason' can be no justification for holding a moral opinion - but that morality is objective because my team's invented god says X is morally right and Y is morally wrong - as though that isn't 'having a reason' for holding a moral opinion.

With reasoning of this calibre, it's a wonder moral objectivism hasn't swept the field. Game over.

Caught as we are somewhere between the one who owns the word "morality" and won't allow it to be used to discuss good and bad, and now the one who owns the word "is" and insists it can only assert grand ontological truths, we're fast running out of words we're allowed to use to say any of these antirealist things with anyway. Soon you'll have to become a non-cognitivist whether you like it or not because the only thing you'll be permitted to say is "mooooOOooo"

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, it has been argued that 'having a reason' can be no justification for holding a moral opinion - but that morality is objective because my team's invented god says X is morally right and Y is morally wrong - as though that isn't 'having a reason' for holding a moral opinion.

With reasoning of this calibre, it's a wonder moral objectivism hasn't swept the field. Game over.

Caught as we are somewhere between the one who owns the word "morality" and won't allow it to be used to discuss good and bad, and now the one who owns the word "is" and insists it can only assert grand ontological truths, we're fast running out of words we're allowed to use to say any of these antirealist things with anyway. Soon you'll have to become a non-cognitivist whether you like it or not because the only thing you'll be permitted to say is "mooooOOooo"

Agreed. Feels a bit like whack-a-mole. But moles are just trying to make a living - so I feel bad sometimes.

[Iwannaplato]

Good Lord
When the group = the human species, then maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the group means that fundamentalist Islam needs to be disbanded, and dictatorships should be prevented from existing, because there's a good chance that eventually they will get hold of WMDs and start nuking the planet, release new killer viruses etc. When many members of the group die or get radiation poisoning, and the world collapses, that's the opposite of maximizing pleasure for the group.

You unnecessarily invented a nonsensical alternative version of morality because you couldn't see the big picture?

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

I'm got stuck on these Muslims who've been arguing they are maximizing pleasure. That a new for me, non-deontologist Muslims. Islam as hedonism and consequentialism. I learn new things from VA regarding things I could've sworn I had a handle on. Mohammad must have read a lot of JS Mill.

[Atla]

It is not fundamentalist Islam but rather Islam itself that promote such a moral principle.
If you a moral relativist you have to respect the moral principles of those who maximize pleasure and minimizing pain and even other subjective moral beliefs.

Even if you are moral realist, Islam itself will claim their moral principle is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain [certain WMDs enable quick deaths thus minimal pains]. Since Islam moral principles accord with your moral principles, you have to go along with it.

Are you are moral realist or moral relativist?
Either way, you are check-mated.

In any case, since Islam moral principles accord and Muslims insist theirs is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pains they will resist any attempts to be weaned off.
How are you going to get rid of Islam?

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

I'm got stuck on these Muslims who've been arguing they are maximizing pleasure. That a new for me, non-deontologist Muslims. Islam as hedonism and consequentialism. I learn new things from VA regarding things I could've sworn I had a handle on. Mohammad must have read a lot of JS Mill.

The one thing that VA got right is tham Islam needs to be eliminated, he just goes about it in a way that will probably make Islam stronger than ever.

[Iwannaplato]

I am check-mated?
It is a malignant, deeply dishonest insinuation, a blatant lie that moral relativists have to respect the moral principles of others.
I'd say that's a morally downright evil claim, which you keep making willingly. Looks like you check-mated yourself.

Also, nuking people doesn't maximize their pleasure. heh

I'm got stuck on these Muslims who've been arguing they are maximizing pleasure. That a new for me, non-deontologist Muslims. Islam as hedonism and consequentialism. I learn new things from VA regarding things I could've sworn I had a handle on. Mohammad must have read a lot of JS Mill.

The one thing that VA got right is tham Islam needs to be eliminated, he just goes about it in a way that will probably make Islam stronger than ever.

I'm no fan of Islam. Though I think there are much more threatening power players. I think some share VA's enthusiasm for bringing in utopia via processes, some technological, that I am...hm....wishing humans were more cautious about.

[Atla]

I'm got stuck on these Muslims who've been arguing they are maximizing pleasure. That a new for me, non-deontologist Muslims. Islam as hedonism and consequentialism. I learn new things from VA regarding things I could've sworn I had a handle on. Mohammad must have read a lot of JS Mill.

The one thing that VA got right is tham Islam needs to be eliminated, he just goes about it in a way that will probably make Islam stronger than ever.

I'm no fan of Islam. Though I think there are much more threatening power players. I think some share VA's enthusiasm for bringing in utopia via processes, some technological, that I am...hm....wishing humans were more cautious about.

Most of you guys are from the US right, so you don't know much about Islam?
What VA said this time was no joke. Islam has no concept of empathy towards non-Muslims. You as a subhuman have to be saved from yourself, which means either you are turned into a Muslim or you are killed. Only these two options will be good for you. And the Muslim who kills you flies to Heaven.

Objective morality at its finest..

[Iwannaplato]

Most of you guys are from the US right, so you don't know much about Islam?

I can't speak for the others but I do have a lot of experience with Muslims, and then because of this I've down research. I'm no expert in Islam, but contact, lots.

What VA said this time was no joke. Islam has no concept of empathy towards non-Muslims. You as a subhuman have to be saved from yourself, which means either you are turned into a Muslim or you are killed. Only these two options will be good for you. And the Muslim who kills you flies to Heaven.

Yeah, that's not my experience of Muslims. Look, I don't like the religion.

Objective morality at its finest..

As said, but now said slightly differently: I'm more concerned about the psychopaths who know they're not moral and don't care - whatever their PR teams might spew out.

If you think this means I think Islam OK, well, it doesn't.
If you think my concern about psychopaths means I am a big fan of objective morality, it doesn't.

[Atla]

Most of you guys are from the US right, so you don't know much about Islam?

I can't speak for the others but I do have a lot of experience with Muslims, and then because of this I've down research. I'm no expert in Islam, but contact, lots.

What VA said this time was no joke. Islam has no concept of empathy towards non-Muslims. You as a subhuman have to be saved from yourself, which means either you are turned into a Muslim or you are killed. Only these two options will be good for you. And the Muslim who kills you flies to Heaven.

Yeah, that's not my experience of Muslims. Look, I don't like the religion.

Objective morality at its finest..

As said, but now said slightly differently: I'm more concerned about the psychopaths who know they're not moral and don't care - whatever their PR teams might spew out.

If you think this means I think Islam OK, well, it doesn't.
If you think my concern about psychopaths means I am a big fan of objective morality, it doesn't.

I meant that Islam IS psychopathy towards non-Muslims, but Muslims living in Western countries especially in the US usually are civilized and well-adjusted.

I meant that yes right now the planet faces bigger problems, but that's also because Islam doesn't have the capability yet to destroy it.