Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Some people don't deserve forgiveness, even if they "need" it.

Are you one of those?

You'd maybe better let God decide that.

I mean let's be clear here, forgiveness has two meanings, not punishing someone, and letting go of feelings of resentment towards that someone.

More than two, actually. It's quite a profound concept, with several aspects.

But I have to say, I think "punishing" is no part of forgiveness at all. By definition, if you punished somebody, you didn't forgive them. Rather, you "made them pay." That's not forgiving them.

And "letting go of feelings of resentment" might be necessary, but it's more "forgetness" than "forgiveness." And the problem with it is exactly what I think you're at pains to avoid -- it lets the offender continue his offence, without any redress to the victim or any rectification of the injustice. Moreover, it does nothing to restore the relationship between offender and offended...you still can't trust the guy. "Letting go" fails to involve a proper recognition that the offence actually took place, and that it was just as bad as it actually was. I don't know how the victim is supposed to live with that, let alone the one to be "forgiven."

So I don't really see the concept of forgiveness in either, I must say.

Fortunately Hell probably doesn't exist though, we only have to be concerned with what happens in this world.

If that's true, then God would truly be unjust. He would have let Hitler, Stalin and Mao do what they did, and then walk away with considerably less payment than they extorted from others, to say nothing of their offenses against justice and against God Himself.

I guess what one has to decide is, "How important is justice?"

And with that, one has to ask oneself, "What about my sins?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Again you have no substance on the above handwaving.
You are banking on the atheist Hume's "is-ought" to argue your case.
I bet you don't understand Hume 'is-ought' fundamental.
If so, give me a clue starting from Hume's matter-of-fact, impressions, relations and ideas.

Whatever your argument re Morality is Objective, it is baseless when it is grounded on God which is an illusion.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Even though God is an illusion, it is a useful illusion for morality to some degree.
The Christianity Moral FSK is the Most Effective at Present
viewtopic.php?t=40374

In the FSK sense, the Christianity-Moral is objective within degrees.
Because it is grounded on a illusion, the degree of objective for Christian Morality is the extreme lowest end of say 0.01/100 where the scientific FSK is the standard of objectivity at 100/100.
As such, Christian Morality is more like 99.01% subjectivity.

[Atla]

Some people don't deserve forgiveness, even if they "need" it.

Are you one of those?

You'd maybe better let God decide that.

I mean let's be clear here, forgiveness has two meanings, not punishing someone, and letting go of feelings of resentment towards that someone.

More than two, actually. It's quite a profound concept, with several aspects.

But I have to say, I think "punishing" is no part of forgiveness at all. By definition, if you punished somebody, you didn't forgive them. Rather, you "made them pay." That's not forgiving them.

And "letting go of feelings of resentment" might be necessary, but it's more "forgetness" than "forgiveness." And the problem with it is exactly what I think you're at pains to avoid -- it lets the offender continue his offence, without any redress to the victim or any rectification of the injustice. Moreover, it does nothing to restore the relationship between offender and offended...you still can't trust the guy. "Letting go" fails to involve a proper recognition that the offence actually took place, and that it was just as bad as it actually was. I don't know how the victim is supposed to live with that, let alone the one to be "forgiven."

So I don't really see the concept of forgiveness in either, I must say.

Fortunately Hell probably doesn't exist though, we only have to be concerned with what happens in this world.

If that's true, then God would truly be unjust. He would have let Hitler, Stalin and Mao do what they did, and then walk away with considerably less payment than they extorted from others, to say nothing of their offenses against justice and against God Himself.

I guess what one has to decide is, "How important is justice?"

And with that, one has to ask oneself, "What about my sins?"

The debate is pointless, not only Hell doesn't exist, Heaven and God don't exist either. Apparently Stalin should be forgiven which I disagree with to put it mildly. We live in an unjust, amoral world, and only we could make it better by adopting a good worldwide pseudo-objective morality which is subjective in its basis. But hoping that God or karma or whatever will set things right, tells people that they don't have to take action now in this life against injustice.

[Immanuel Can]

I bet you don't understand Hume 'is-ought' fundamental.

Ironic, coming from you. I'll bet you're quite manifestly wrong.

However, I can see that you haven't got any idea what Hume's Guillotine actually is. And you don't apparently realize that biology is an "is," not an "ought." But to embarass you is not my intention. Nor do I enjoy magnifying an obvious shortcoming at somebody's expense. So I'm content to let you work it out; there are plenty of books on the subject, and I'm confident you can straighten out the misapprehension.

[Immanuel Can]

The debate is pointless, not only Hell doesn't exist, Heaven and God don't exist either.

Hardly pointless. You must surely realize that if you're wrong, a great deal hangs upon it. Even a skeptic of these things can't miss the obviousness of that, I'm sure.

Apparently Stalin should be forgiven...

You have insight into Stalin's soul, and so you think Stalin was repentant, and was so repentant that even God could not see through it? You're very confident.

We live in an unjust, amoral world...

That's interesting.

You imply you're offended at the idea of a great sinner being forgiven; but then you claim that the world is inherently amoral and unjust anyway. So you've nothing to be offended about, since no justice is even promised in such a world as you suppose you are in. So if you really suppose it, why are you annoyed by the idea of a God who could forgive great sins? Those two impulses do not reconcile with each other.

But I think the truth is that you do believe in justice. And you expect it. And you recognize that an amoral world would be wrong. So your objection is a cry for a justice that you don't see around you, but think you ought to be granted. Is that not right?

If it's wrong, then what are you complaining about? You don't expect justice, and don't have any reason to feel slighted if you don't see it.

...and only we could make it better by adopting a good worldwide pseudo-objective morality which is subjective in its basis.

That's another interesting claim: the world would be made better if we believed in a "pseudo-objective morality," you say...so objectivism would be better. But you think it would need to be "pseudo," which means, artificial and false. So the claim reads, "The world needs to be deceived into believing in some arbitrary version of morality that is not true." And put plainly, like that, it's a stunning claim, really.

That would "make it better"?

In sum, it's an argument in favour of pure indoctrination in lies, for somebody's instrumental purposes. I suspect you can't actually mean it if you think it through.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I bet you don't understand Hume 'is-ought' fundamental.

Ironic, coming from you. I'll bet you're quite manifestly wrong.

However, I can see that you haven't got any idea what Hume's Guillotine actually is. And you don't apparently realize that biology is an "is," not an "ought." But to embarass you is not my intention. Nor do I enjoy magnifying an obvious shortcoming at somebody's expense. So I'm content to let you work it out; there are plenty of books on the subject, and I'm confident you can straighten out the misapprehension.

If you understand the fundamentals of what Hume's Guillotine actually is, provide a rough outline [in a few lines] in terms of Hume's matter-of-fact, impressions, relations, ideas and how did Hume argue from these elements that there is no is from ought.
It should not take long if you are that familiar with it.

What Hume condemned of 'ought' from 'is' are the 'ought' as commands from a God that threaten believers with Hell if they do not comply.
To Hume, with God, there is not even an "is" that an ought is derived from anything real 'is' but merely from an illusion.
In the case of human affairs, Hume deny there can be any 'ought' from 'is' where the ought is enforced on others.

What I am proposing has nothing to do with Hume's 'No Is from Ought' within his Treatise, which is restricted to external matter of facts and oughts that are enforced on others.

What I am proposing are internal biological potentials of humans as ought-ness from within oneself that one has an obligation /duty to oneself to act for oneself and that has nothing to do with enforcing on other humans.
These oughts are derivatives from one's own 'is' i.e. own existence.
As such, there is an oughtness to breathe arising from one's human nature [is] is very rational. This is undeniable.

From the above as an analogy, the inherent oughtness is extended from biology to morality.

I predict you will handwave the above because you just don't have the competence to grasp [not necessary agree with] the above knowledge.

[Iwannaplato]

Let me clear that up.

All human knowing, outside of closed symbol systems (and there's an argument to be made that even within such) is probabilistic. The Theist claims to believe there is a God, based on the high probability of such he/she deduces from a variety of sources, including reason, empirical evidence, experience, revelation, conscience and intution. That's the Theistic episteme: to "know" something is to know it probabilistically, and to draw the final step of one's ultimate conviction by faith...because absolute knowledge is not possible to human beings.

That's actually exactly the same as the way science does business. It estimates the probability of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence and tests...but never having done the complete set of possible tests, and within a range of error, the scientist ventures a conclusion...ready for it to be tested in future, but firm enough in it by faith to offer it as the most likely explanation of the phenomenon in view.

The Atheist, however, claims absolute knowledge: he asserts there simply IS no God. He hasn't got evidence to warrant even a probabilistic argument of that kind, actually, but he claims certainty for himself, and expects agreement from his interlocutors that the same is absolutely certain. And if we take God's word for the case, then all the while, the Atheist senses in his heart that God not only may be real, but is. But even if we disregard Romans 1 on that, we still end up with this: that the Atheist claims certainty to which he has no rational entitlement.

Which one is behaving realistically, humbly and honestly? You can see.

Again, evasive. You have said that atheists know there is a God.
Yet you also say that you believe there is a god, but this is probablistic so you need faith in that belief.

There's a lot of noise in your response above, but you don't reconcile the oddity of your beliefs here.
Why don't you know deep down like the atheist does? Even after all your reasoning, revelation, reading etc. you have a belief. The atheist knows. You cheat above by sliding in that the atheist senses, in the one portion of the above noise that actually focuses on my question. So, you change the wording, which says to me you, perhaps unconsciously, understand the problem, but even with this unacknowledged change in wording, you still don't address the simple contradiction.

You had to work hard to have a belief.
The atheist just knows.

[Immanuel Can]

I bet you don't understand Hume 'is-ought' fundamental.

Ironic, coming from you. I'll bet you're quite manifestly wrong.

However, I can see that you haven't got any idea what Hume's Guillotine actually is. And you don't apparently realize that biology is an "is," not an "ought." But to embarass you is not my intention. Nor do I enjoy magnifying an obvious shortcoming at somebody's expense. So I'm content to let you work it out; there are plenty of books on the subject, and I'm confident you can straighten out the misapprehension.

If you understand the fundamentals of what Hume's Guillotine actually is, provide a rough outline...

I did that for you long ago. You've forgotten, because it made no impression on you, apparently. If you go back, you will see. It was among some of your first posts.

You ignored it, because at least at that moment, to keep "seeming right" to yourself was more important than actually being right, I think.

I can't beat that attitude. You're going to have to fix it yourself. It's not my problem to solve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ironic, coming from you. I'll bet you're quite manifestly wrong.

However, I can see that you haven't got any idea what Hume's Guillotine actually is. And you don't apparently realize that biology is an "is," not an "ought." But to embarass you is not my intention. Nor do I enjoy magnifying an obvious shortcoming at somebody's expense. So I'm content to let you work it out; there are plenty of books on the subject, and I'm confident you can straighten out the misapprehension.

If you understand the fundamentals of what Hume's Guillotine actually is, provide a rough outline...

I did that for you long ago. You've forgotten, because it made no impression on you, apparently. If you go back, you will see. It was among some of your first posts.

You ignored it, because at least at that moment, to keep "seeming right" to yourself was more important than actually being right, I think.

I can't beat that attitude. You're going to have to fix it yourself. It's not my problem to solve.

It must because your post was not impressive that it did not make an impression on me.
Show me the link if possible.
Note I have made several advances from the first discussion re 'is-ought' to my current knowledge of it.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me clear that up.

All human knowing, outside of closed symbol systems (and there's an argument to be made that even within such) is probabilistic. The Theist claims to believe there is a God, based on the high probability of such he/she deduces from a variety of sources, including reason, empirical evidence, experience, revelation, conscience and intution. That's the Theistic episteme: to "know" something is to know it probabilistically, and to draw the final step of one's ultimate conviction by faith...because absolute knowledge is not possible to human beings.

That's actually exactly the same as the way science does business. It estimates the probability of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence and tests...but never having done the complete set of possible tests, and within a range of error, the scientist ventures a conclusion...ready for it to be tested in future, but firm enough in it by faith to offer it as the most likely explanation of the phenomenon in view.

The Atheist, however, claims absolute knowledge: he asserts there simply IS no God. He hasn't got evidence to warrant even a probabilistic argument of that kind, actually, but he claims certainty for himself, and expects agreement from his interlocutors that the same is absolutely certain. And if we take God's word for the case, then all the while, the Atheist senses in his heart that God not only may be real, but is. But even if we disregard Romans 1 on that, we still end up with this: that the Atheist claims certainty to which he has no rational entitlement.

Which one is behaving realistically, humbly and honestly? You can see.

Again, evasive.

I've evaded nothing. I've told you the truth. I don't know why you want something else.

You have said that atheists know there is a God.

Well, let's revise that, so we can be clear. The problem with the word "know" is that we use it casually, to signal both certain knowledge and probabilistic knowledge. And so when we say "know" we sometimes forget to specify which kind of "knowing" we're talking about.

Let's fix that.

Atheists have every reason to believe there's a God. In their hearts, they suspect it. With their brains, they know they have no evidence warranting their Atheism. With their eyes, they can see the evidence of nature, and with their consciences, they are aware of the moral law, even when they reject it. Everything around them is shouting that God exists, and yet they put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell, "There's no God!"

But they do not know, if by knowing we mean certainty. Far from it. But they want you to think that certainty is what they have. Why else would Dawkins, for example, write his book and call it "The God Delusion" if he didn't want you to believe he had a line of argumentation that should close your mind to even the possibility of God, and relegate that belief to the land of "delusion"? And why would anybody declare, "I'm an Atheist," if he didn't want you to think you should be one too, because he has the evidence for his unbelief? Yet the fact is, he does not.

Why don't you know deep down like the atheist does?

He doesn't have certain knowledge. He may wish us to think he does, and his central claim, "There is no God" is a claim designed to signal certainty.

He doesn't have certainty. He just wants people to believe he does. Because if he reduced his claim to, "It seems more probable to me than not that God does not exist," then people could ask him for his reasons for his calculation. And he has no good reasons to offer. So a false posture of certainty serves his turn, propagandistically; but there's no reality to that claim.

Clear?

The atheist just knows.

That's what he wants you to think. But it's simply not true. Epistemologically, we know he's faking his certainty. But something less determinate would soften his Atheism into mere agnosticism; and he doesn't want that. It would open the door again to the question of his evidence, and he hasn't got what it takes to eliminate God from the universe. So he has to bluff.

[Immanuel Can]

Note I have made several advances from the first discussion re 'is-ought'.

I'm not going to solve your problem for you. I don't think you're genuinely interested, and I know for certain that if you do your own research, you'll find out you've been wrong all along. But it would be a waste of my time to fight with you over it, only to have you return to your earlier stance.

So I'll forgo the pleasure, if you don't mind. You can find out.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't need faith in the law of gravity.

Actually, we do.

Try flying a plane. Part of the aerodynamics depends on the downward force of gravity, as well as the uplift of a rush of air beneath the wings and a faster one above. If gravity were suddenly not there, or if it were unpredictable, the plane would smash into the runway or soar into space, killing everybody either way.

Do you ride in planes? If you do, you have faith in gravity.

Another evasive response. First, you do not respond to anything I said. You start as if I simply made a bare assertion, that I don't have faith in gravity. You ignore what I wrote and in the end simply reassert your position by using faith in a way unjustified by the example.
Second, there's nothing in the description of flight that justifies the word 'faith' being used.

This is a typical evasive way of responding: to not interact with the points made by the other person.

I see little evidence that most atheist spend a lot of energy on the issue. How did you determine they do this?

Because they call themselves "Atheists." They self-identify by their disbelief in God. So they must consider it very, very important, no? Why would they self-identify that way, if they did not?

1) you didn't really answer the question. [/quote]

I believe I did.

The question was how did you determine they spend a lot of energy on the issue?

My answer was, "Because they self-identify that way." In other words, I believe them.

I don't spend energy on a lot of the categories I know I fit into.

Maybe you're more open-minded than they are. Or maybe you just try not to think about it.

So, you have no evidence they spend a lot of energy. All you know is that those online, say, identify with some regularity as atheists. You don't know if this takes a lot of energy, but you assure me it must. And then since these are a small minority of atheists, you really have no idea about the others.

And let's say you were right, that knowing which category one falls into requires spending a lot of energy.

Someone who is not evasive would have noticed that the question had to do with spending a lot of energy. They would say that the person self-identifies as atheist - and then explain why this must entail spending a lot of energy. Certainly the act requires very little.

But you provide no justification for not seeming to remember the question.

All these quirks in responding and not really responding just end being these delaying moves. Might be intentional, might be unconscious, but it means that people have to constantly track you down. Dont' actually interact with the other person's argument, respeat your own. Don't quite respond to the question but respond as if it was a different related one.

I know you can easily assert that you aren't doing these things. But for whatever it's worth, I find it obvious. And I will bet others have reacted this way because you do it with such regularity.

Christianity has never caused ANY violence. You can see that because Jesus Christ never caused any, and never endorsed any, and never did any. You can see it in both His life and His consistent teaching. "Love your enemies," He said, "do good to them," and "pray for them."

So somebody became violent, you can be happily reassured they did so without reference to Christianity, no matter what motive they claimed.

Then you must have an enormous problem with nearly every church that keeps the OT in there. I know, the NT eradicates the OT, which for some reason is put in all Bibles anyway.
and then Jesus...

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

And, yes, I know this will be explained away as not meaning that they should actually do this.

But you'd think a deity would make this mistake of not knowing how his teachings would be used, especially when coupled with the OT. And of course, in fact, Jesus told everyone to follow the OT which was "God-breathed" and "Not the least stroke of a pen [of the OT] will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

And I am sure you have mental gymnastics for a deity not meaning what this says. And peachy. Let's say you really have reconciled the way people should view the OT as integrated into the NT.

But that a deity could not see how incredibly confusing that all was and how incredibly likely it was going to lead to incredible swathes of violence is beyond me. Especially when Jesus could have made it clear what was not really God in the OT, given what God is ordering his chosen people to do, amongst other things.

So, the 'not those guys aren't really Christians' argument is very weak because in the end it makes God and Jesus look very naive.

I don't think you argue/discuss in good faith, IC. I'm going to ignore you again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I have made several advances from the first discussion re 'is-ought'.

I'm not going to solve your problem for you. I don't think you're genuinely interested, and I know for certain that if you do your own research, you'll find out you've been wrong all along. But it would be a waste of my time to fight with you over it, only to have you return to your earlier stance.

So I'll forgo the pleasure, if you don't mind. You can find out.

Again, that is handwaving, which is cowardly and evasive.

If you claimed you have understood Hume clearly and insisted you have posted that earlier, show me the post[s]. I don't remember discussing it with you from the perspective of Biology and the personal self.
If you cannot find the post[s], at least repeat it in a rough outline. It should not be that tedious if you really had understood Hume's No IS from OUGHT.

[Atla]

The debate is pointless, not only Hell doesn't exist, Heaven and God don't exist either.

Hardly pointless. You must surely realize that if you're wrong, a great deal hangs upon it
...

Gee you don't say.
But your theism is just one of many, maybe thousands, and it's probably you who is wrong. A great deal hangs upon finding a form of morality that can be made to work, in an age where many people can no longer be deceived by ancient Christian tales.

[Peter Holmes]

The debate is pointless, not only Hell doesn't exist, Heaven and God don't exist either.

Hardly pointless. You must surely realize that if you're wrong, a great deal hangs upon it
...

Gee you don't say.
But your theism is just one of many, maybe thousands, and it's probably you who is wrong. A great deal hangs upon finding a form of morality that can be made to work, in an age where many people can no longer be deceived by ancient Christian tales.

I've never met a theist who spent a moment worrying about whether they'd picked the wrong invented god. The required intellectual corruption is necessary. It's the ultimate Us and Them delusion.