Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I have raised near to 60 threads covering every angle [complete and exhausted] of the 'is-ought' issue related to the field of Ethics?

Stunning, then, that a person can talk so much while understanding so little.

...he was ignorant of its source because there was no knowledge of advance biology and neuroscience then [1700s].

I'm astonished that you can quote him verbatim, then completely miss his point.

I guess you can cite him, but not understand him even one bit. Biology is an "is." It has no "oughts." And you won't find any in it. You're just guilty of the very category error Hume was so at pains to prevent.

A truly amazing failure of insight. I couldn't possibly add a thing to what you've already exposed about what you don't understand here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have raised near to 60 threads covering every angle [complete and exhausted] of the 'is-ought' issue related to the field of Ethics?

Stunning, then, that a person can talk so much while understanding so little.

...he was ignorant of its source because there was no knowledge of advance biology and neuroscience then [1700s].

I'm astonished that you can quote him verbatim, then completely miss his point.

I guess you can cite him, but not understand him even one bit. Biology is an "is." It has no "oughts." And you won't find any in it. You're just guilty of the very category error Hume was so at pains to prevent.

A truly amazing failure of insight. I couldn't possibly add a thing to what you've already exposed about what you don't understand here.

Hume did have some points especially in relation to his time [1700s] but his philosophy re 'is-ought' from the 1700s is outdated at present.
It is very pathetic [philosophically] you are still clinging to Hume especially when his main focus is the condemnation of God as illusory.

Note Kant who was awoken from his 'slumber of dogmatism' by Hume, explained and refuted all of Hume's major philosophical themes. I bet you are ignorant of the details involved in this.

Stunning, then, that a person can talk so much while understanding so little.

Handwaving merely spoil your philosophical credibility.
Show me in which of the 60 threads I have raised on the issue is wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

Hume did have some points especially in relation to his time [1700s]

You're naive about Hume's argument. You imagine that because it's old, it's inapplicable now. But you're powerless to show that it is. There is no "biology" that justifies morality. And that fact that you think there is shows that you never came close to understanding Hume's point at all.

But if he can't explain it to you, I sure can't. You're on your own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hume did have some points especially in relation to his time [1700s]

You're naive about Hume's argument. You imagine that because it's old, it's inapplicable now. But you're powerless to show that it is. There is no "biology" that justifies morality. And that fact that you think there is shows that you never came close to understanding Hume's point at all.

But if he can't explain it to you, I sure can't. You're on your own.

Me naive about Hume's argument??
after ~60 threads on the issue from every angle??
Justify your claim - at least with a clue?

I have stated 'biology' itself cannot be 'morality' because each has its own specific FSK.
But biological facts from a biology FSK can be inputted into a moral FSK to enable moral facts.

For example,
'What is DNA' itself is a biological fact from the biology-FSK.
But when DNA facts are inputted into a legal FSK, it enable legal facts.
There are legal facts where the biological fact of DNA represent a 90% weightage within the legal fact.

For example.
It is a legal fact that Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. -the Golden State Killer- is a convicted serial killer within the legal FSK of the USA.
It took 40 years after his crimes were committed, to catch and convict him.
This legal fact is grounded heavily on the biological facts of DNA.
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... the-window
In this case, the biological fact of the DNA evidence is the most critical and significant evidence in convicting DeAngelo as a legal fact.

Note how the fact from a FSK [biology] significantly contribute to the emergence of a fact from very different FSK [legal].

Thus as with the above analogy,
When biological facts from the science-biology-FSK are inputted into the human-based moral FSK, it enable the emergence of objective moral facts.

Your grounding on knowledge of the 1700s is too archival.

[Atla]

Perhaps there are people who are simply motivated by heaven and hell. I don't meet many, but I hold it possible they exist. But to suppose that's the central motive for doing good would be specious, since the Bible makes it very clear that following moral rules, even the objectively right ones, is not a ticket to heaven or a pass out of hell. (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, for examples)

So I can't quite catch the point there.

Following moral rules has nothing to do with ending up in Heaven or Hell? Do people know this you'd say?

I'd say they should maybe read their Bibles. That would be a good idea, if they want to call themselves "Christian," wouldn't it?

Fine, then even the worst mass murderer can go to Heaven when he believes, Christianity is evil

[Iwannaplato]

Following moral rules has nothing to do with ending up in Heaven or Hell? Do people know this you'd say?

I'd say they should maybe read their Bibles. That would be a good idea, if they want to call themselves "Christian," wouldn't it?

Fine, then even the worst mass murderer can go to Heaven when he believes, Christianity is evil

I actually like this aspect of Christianity. But the person can't simply believe. They have to truly repent their sins. So, they would no longer be a mass murderer in what some would view as a core way. Of course, the key criterion of 'truly repenting' depends on some rigor on God's part, but presumably a deity could have a rigorous epistemology. IOW a way of separating 'really scared of Hell' from 'finding a complete repulsion in relation to one's sins such that one could not perform these acts'.

And one reason I like this is quite selfish - not in relation to an afterlife, but in relation to guilt and shame are acts and tendencies. How can I come to peace with mean or callous things I've done and not done? And the only way I find to do this is to realize that I would not do these things again. That I have faced the way I was, understand it, understand also the consequences and I am no longer the person who could do those things. Otherwise accepting myself seems an impossibility or just part of some kind of narcissistic callousness regarding other people. (admittedly I am not feeling guilty about massmurder or the like, but I think we are talking about a matter of degree.

I also feel this way in relation to others who have done things to me (not immediately and often I do not get to experience their changes. i am not at all saintlike). I notice that when people regret and apologize, I find my anger drops out. Especially if I can see they get it: they did it because of X. And now see how messed up their justification was. And similar types of insights. I have been surprised how sometimes any rancor I have dissolves almost immediately.

I suppose in a way this is part of why I find the Christian Hell idea so utterly sick and repulsive. To keep something alive to torture it for eternity is an attitude and act I would need any deity to regret and repent before I could forgive that deity.

[Harbal]

Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything. So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

[FlashDangerpants]

Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything. So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

If I were a Christian, and I believed that God Hates Homos and sends them to Hell, I would still think that was a shame, and frankly that it was an overreaction on His part. Same as I think it's stupid to send people to eternal flames for not believing in something invisible and undetectable, that's a very bad overreaction to fuck all provocation by any reasonable standard.

But the good news is that you don't have to do any of that. All you have to do is choose God's morals to suit yourself, which is what all the real Christians do. Just pick a church where God says you are right, and if you can't get ehe full package then make the closest match you can and just heresy the rest.

Then only read the bits of the Bible that agree with you as litteral truth, for the bits that don't agree with you, everyone is simply interpreting those incorrectly.

[Harbal]

Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything. So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

If I were a Christian, and I believed that God Hates Homos and sends them to Hell, I would still think that was a shame, and frankly that it was an overreaction on His part. Same as I think it's stupid to send people to eternal flames for not believing in something invisible and undetectable, that's a very bad overreaction to fuck all provocation by any reasonable standard.

But the good news is that you don't have to do any of that. All you have to do is choose God's morals to suit yourself, which is what all the real Christians do. Just pick a church where God says you are right, and if you can't get ehe full package then make the closest match you can and just heresy the rest.

Then only read the bits of the Bible that agree with you as litteral truth, for the bits that don't agree with you, everyone is simply interpreting those incorrectly.

IC seems to have had all the humanity sucked out of him. God has turned him into an uncompromising machine like being that cannot be reasoned with, and simply will not stop until it has carried out it's mission.

Because-God-say-so.jpg

[Iwannaplato]

No, it comes off as evasive or confused. You can have your own personal moral or even merely emotional reaction to rape AND not decide that you consider yourself smarter than God.

Are you thinking my position on that is not clear?

What don't you understand? I'll clear it up.

You left out, in your quote here, what I wrote about the issue. Was there something you did not understand? Did you include that when thinking about what I said?

And atheists are not assuming they are smarter than God.

They are. They don't listen to Him. But they do know He exists. (Romans 1).

You're using the Bible to demonstrate that they know He exists, lol. I don't know what the need for faith is if everyone knows.

That's why they expend so much energy on the issue of His existence, too: they know that question is basic to everything.

Perhaps you are confusing public atheists and people who argue for atheism or against theism in philosophy forums. I see little evidence that most atheist spend a lot of energy on the issue. How did you determine they do this?

What else can one make of that but that they think they know better that anything He says?

Or, they don't believe God exists.

But don't worry: we'll find out if I'm right or not.

Well, if you're way off on things you'll never find out.

Can't simple empathy be enough.

Then why do we have wars, rapes, slavery, cannibalism, torture, gulags, genocides, racism, theft, lies, cruelty pedophilia...if man is driven by "empathy," how do we explain their existence at all?

I was talking about specific individuals who are fairly simple people with strong empathy. IOW who do not need to go through some analytical process like you seemed to be saying one had to.

Your response is confused. I am talking about simple people who follow the commandments of the Bible and strive to do what Jesus said. Those things were not carried out by them. YOu are making a category error.

I am questioning whether all Christians must go through the analytical processes or can they not follow the Bible and Jesus without all that and come to Heaven.

You're responding as if I said: Humans feel empathy, everything's fine.

Apparently, the fount of human "empathy" doesn't stop much evil from happening;

Nor has theism. And the dominant theisms have contributed a lot to the horrors, including killing their own.

There's room for the simple heart, and for the complicated head. But there's no room for the hard heart and the empty head.

well, now you just answered my question in the affirmation after running around with a lot of irrelevant stuff. Those with simple hearts who don't do a lot of analysis can be just peachy in Christianity.

[FlashDangerpants]

IC seems to have had all the humanity sucked out of him. God has turned him into an uncompromising machine like being that cannot be reasoned with, and simply will not stop until it has carried out it's mission.

This is tough subject matter for him. He used to be gay himself, but luckily he prayed really really really hard and it went away.

[Immanuel Can]

Hume did have some points especially in relation to his time [1700s]

You're naive about Hume's argument. You imagine that because it's old, it's inapplicable now. But you're powerless to show that it is. There is no "biology" that justifies morality. And that fact that you think there is shows that you never came close to understanding Hume's point at all.

But if he can't explain it to you, I sure can't. You're on your own.

Me naive about Hume's argument??
after ~60 threads on the issue from every angle??

Yes, it astonishes me, too. But when I tried to help you out, you just dug in.

So I think I won't spend any time trying to drill a hole in water.

You're on your own, I guess...but by your own decision.

[Immanuel Can]

Following moral rules has nothing to do with ending up in Heaven or Hell? Do people know this you'd say?

I'd say they should maybe read their Bibles. That would be a good idea, if they want to call themselves "Christian," wouldn't it?

Fine, then even the worst mass murderer can go to Heaven when he believes, Christianity is evil

So you don't believe there is forgiveness for sin?

That would bode a very ominous future for us all.

Good thing it isn't the case.

[Immanuel Can]

Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything.

They are worth something if they happen to coincide with the truth. But even you, you are not going to say that an opinion that is false it going to be a good one, are you?

So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

It would be fair to say I know that my instincts are fallible, so I check my sense of moral right and wrong against the truth of God's word. And if they coincide, I'm at peace; if they do not, then beyond doubt, it's me that needs to rethink.

[Iwannaplato]

It would be fair to say I know that my instincts are fallible, so I check my sense of moral right and wrong against the truth of God's word. And if they coincide, I'm at peace; if they do not, then beyond doubt, it's me that needs to rethink.

So, you trust the intuitive part of you that says that all parts of the Bible are correct, but you do not trust the parts of yourself that draw moral conclusions that might not or do not match the Bible. How do you determine which parts of yourself to trust so radically and which you can dismiss?