Is morality objective or subjective?

[Iwannaplato]

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.

People do convert and many theists think it can be fine to be in another religion. Some will say it is the same God. I mean, I understand the phenomenon you're reacting to, but it's hardly universal. We can't generalize from online characters.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Allow me to donate a little quotie from mister Can on the importance of accurately representing the other party's argument. I knew it would come in handy soon.

I didn't misrepresent your argument.

Yes, you did. You literally said that the reason I gave for morality was "God says so." But that's not what I said at all.

Rather, what I said was that morality is grounded in the nature, character AND expressed wishes of God. And they are in descending order of importance, I might add: the first two are determinative of the third, since God never expresses a wish that is not in accord with His own nature and character.

I don't mind you arguing with that, but failing to recognize it would indeed be misrepresentation of my position. I cannot defend, on your behalf, a position I simply did not take. You have, perhaps, been misled by the "divine commmand" school of ethics, or by something like the Euthyphro mistake; but I can't help you with either...they're just not positions I take.

This question of misrepresentation through ommission matters a lot to him when it happens to him. Perhaps not so much when he is the one inflicting the misrepresentation.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

"Evasive"? I'm being very direct. Perhaps the confusion's not on my side.

First, you do not respond to anything I said.

Then perhaps you should put it more clearly, as to what you want answered. You realize, of course, that somebody who's responding to you has no duty to be bound by any mistaken assumptions you put in the question, don't you?

Just asking.

Second, there's nothing in the description of flight that justifies the word 'faith' being used.

Then you don't know what "faith" is. You think, perhaps, it's some uniquely-religious operation, like lighting taper candles or sacrificing virgins. It's not. It's a very ordinary thing that everybody does every day...but which most non-religious people are oblivious to even having done.

Biblically, "faith" simply means "trust" of the kind in which one invests oneself in a belief. If you think it means anything else, then I'm sorry...you're just wrong.

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.

I gave you my argument for that...twice. Are you having trouble reading?

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

Sorry: it's not "knowing one's category." It's waving about that identity as if it's fundamental to who one is.

Dont' actually interact with the other person's argument, respeat your own.

If the assumptions of your question are wrong, don't expect your interlocutors to feel duty-bound to concede them. They have every right to contest or refuse the terms you try to force upon them, and say, "That's not the way things are: your assumption is wrong." That's normal debating procedure.

If you're not used to that idea, I don't know what to tell you.

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.

It's a parable, you will note, if you just read the surrounding verses. That means that nobody got killed. But it refers to the end of the age, when God judges. And then there will be those that wish that ordinary death was all that was involved.

But I can see you're not interested in understanding that. And then you'll (of course) claim my answer was "evasive" simply because it pointed out the fault in your accusation instead of conceding it to you. But there's no chance you can just get what you want by whining for it, and that's what the "evasive" business is reallly all about: I can see you're just wanting me to think I have to dance to your tune, instead of expressing a disagreement with your premise.

Perhaps you're just not aware of what philosophical debate is, or how it goes; the very presence of premise-disagreement seems to send you into a tizzy. But that can't be helped, because we're on a philosophical debate forum here.

[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.

Again, that is handwaving,

No, it's just refusal to play with somebody who hasn't got the equipment, apparently. But if you do, you'll figure it out. And if you don't, you won't. So the matter will be settled without my help.

[iambiguous]

Yo, IC! You're up!!

You can't just assume the conclusion you want...especially when it's the opposite of objectively right.

Again, that is precisely what many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

...will be telling you regarding your own arrogant assumption that only how you yourself construe Christianity is the One True Path to immortality and salvation. And not just for Alice.

I will rather be pointing you to what Jesus Christ says. What I say is of no consequence, apart from that.

Come on, IC, that's just you telling us that the Christian Bible is true because it is the words of God. And then the fact that it is the word of God proves that it is true.

Instead, what makes my discussions with you quite different from my discussions with those Christians who have taken a "leap of faith" to God, is that you actually insist that beyond the circular "logic" embedded in quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible to "prove" that He exists, you claim there is actual evidence that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist.

And since a part of me truly does want to believe in God again, when someone like you tells me that they have actual evidence to prove that the God I once worshipped and adored myself does exist, I can't help but wonder, "this time...is it true? Does he have such evidence?"

Then I basically came to conclude that even you do not really believe this. But: are you actually deluding yourself here as well? Do you genuinely, consciously believe "in your head" that the Christian God does exist -- that He is the source for both objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side -- but that "subconsciously" another part of you knows that deep down inside those videos do not demonstrate it?

Or is this whole IC thing here just a persona...or a character you play to entertain yourself?

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character.

But not just any Christian. After all, there are many different interpretations of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

And of the 2.6 billion total Christians around the globe, 1.345 billion of them are Catholics.

And then to complicate things further, Christians are not the only ones who worship and adore the God of Abraham. There are also 1.6 billion Muslims and 14 million Jews.

No, Immanuel Can will assure you, true Christians are only those who think about the Christian God precisely as he does.

Go ahead, ask him how he can prove this definitively beyond a mere "leap of faith" or that truly pathetic "wager".

You're very odd.

When you write something silly or obviously false, like misrepresenting my view by way of your own incorrect paraphrase, and I simply pass it over, you repost it. It's as if you believe that it's actually very sage, and that by reposting it, you'll somehow make it important.

Yes, I did misconstrue your point. I thought you were attributing those qualities to mere mortals but instead you attributed them to God. But it was never my intention to deliberately misconstrue you. I was only attempting to grasp how you do connect the dots between the Fall, human nature, human character and Judgment Day given a context like Alice having an abortion.

[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
...

Gee you don't say.
But your theism is just one of many, maybe thousands, and it's probably you who is wrong.

That doesn't follow. There are an infinite number of contrary answers to "What is 2+2?" The presence of the numbers 5, 21, 300 and a million do not constitute an argument that 4 is "probably wrong." A right answer is a right answer.

And in the matter of the existence of the Supreme Being, there are only two answers: yes, and no. To count heads, one would have to say that about 92% of the population of the Earth vote "yes," 4% vote "maybe," and only 4% are definite "nos". That's according to the CIA factbook. So on your strategy, it would be Atheism that's almost certainly wrong.

Good thing for Atheism that we don't count heads. It would be what's called "bandwagon fallacy."

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 actually agree with this statement (apart from the "tales" snipe, of course). For secular morality, the problem since the so-called "Enlightenment" has been the same: how to justify any morality at all, without reference to Christian metaphysics. And the result, up to the present day, has clearly been nothing more than a repeated story of failure.

Much hangs upon the success of such a project, I agree. But if we decide to substitute an arbitrary "pseudo-morality" to be treated as if objective, then all we've really done is to substitute a propaganda strategy for any appeal to reality. We've decided the project of making everybody agree to a common morality is worth indoctrinating them in lies.

Is that what we want to do? That, too, has been tried and failed. It's the whole Marxist project, really, but was also tried by the Fascists and others. It's been offered up in more "benign" forms like Humanism and Deweyan "consensus-making," but it's simply failed in every single case.

So whatever we eventually accept, we're going to have to ground it in reality. And so long as we assume that reality is godless, I think we're probably doomed to failure, as the history of the past two and a bit centuries has evidenced.

But if you still have a secular moral legitimative basis for morality that you'd like to try, I'm happy to consider it with you here.

[Immanuel Can]

Yo, IC! You're up!!

No, I don't dance to your tune. I deal with what's worth dealing with, and my time is my own. Sorry.

[Atla]

That doesn't follow. There are an infinite number of contrary answers to "What is 2+2?" The presence of the numbers 5, 21, 300 and a million do not constitute an argument that 4 is "probably wrong." A right answer is a right answer.

And in the matter of the existence of the Supreme Being, there are only two answers: yes, and no. To count heads, one would have to say that about 92% of the population of the Earth vote "yes," 4% vote "maybe," and only 4% are definite "nos". That's according to the CIA factbook. So on your strategy, it would be Atheism that's almost certainly wrong.

...

There are many or thousands of "the Supreme Being"s, which one is the real one?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

People do convert and many theists think it can be fine to be in another religion. Some will say it is the same God. I mean, I understand the phenomenon you're reacting to, but it's hardly universal. We can't generalize from online characters.

I'm not generalising from online characters. I'm speaking from many years of talking to theists in many different contexts. For example, do you entertain the possibility that your team's god may be a fiction?

You said something to effect of 'If you're wrong, there will be a consequence'. And this is often offered as some kind of reason why I should believe in the invented god being peddled by a theist - as though the choice is between believing in their god, or damnation.

The conviction that their team's is the right god - the real one - is, and has to be, absolute. And that's a corruption of the intellect. It's kissing away your brains, which goes with kissing away your moral conscience.

And, btw, there's no substantial difference whatsoever between divine nature, emanation and command theories of morality. The premise 'my team's god is good' is as uselessly unevidenced as the premise 'what my team's god says is true'.

[Immanuel Can]

That doesn't follow. There are an infinite number of contrary answers to "What is 2+2?" The presence of the numbers 5, 21, 300 and a million do not constitute an argument that 4 is "probably wrong." A right answer is a right answer.

And in the matter of the existence of the Supreme Being, there are only two answers: yes, and no. To count heads, one would have to say that about 92% of the population of the Earth vote "yes," 4% vote "maybe," and only 4% are definite "nos". That's according to the CIA factbook. So on your strategy, it would be Atheism that's almost certainly wrong.

...

There are many or thousands of "the Supreme Being"s, which one is the real one?

There are so many answers to "2+2": which is the right one? We need to be aware that there are two different issues here, not one: the two issues are, "Is there a right answer," and "How many people know the answer?" They're separate questions, and even if nobody knew what "2+2" added up to but God Himself, it would not change the answer to the first question. Gravity existed before people had thought about its existence.

But you do raise a good point, indirectly, and I'll honour it: that good question is, if we're all simply thrown on our own imaginings, how would we know who God is? And the answer, of course, is that we never would. All voices might sound the same, and even if there were a "2+2" kind of truth among them, we couldn't find it.

Unless God spoke. Unless God told us who He is, and put it beyond reasonable doubt. Then, even if men refused to listen, He'd have put them beyond excuse. If they refuse to know, they should still know. But he'd have to make it clear, wouldn't he? He'd have to send some message, some Word that was so unequivocally right that only the truly obdurate of heart could continue to ignore it...

So the question simply becomes, "Has God spoken?" And what would you think is the answer?

[Atla]

That doesn't follow. There are an infinite number of contrary answers to "What is 2+2?" The presence of the numbers 5, 21, 300 and a million do not constitute an argument that 4 is "probably wrong." A right answer is a right answer.

And in the matter of the existence of the Supreme Being, there are only two answers: yes, and no. To count heads, one would have to say that about 92% of the population of the Earth vote "yes," 4% vote "maybe," and only 4% are definite "nos". That's according to the CIA factbook. So on your strategy, it would be Atheism that's almost certainly wrong.

...

There are many or thousands of "the Supreme Being"s, which one is the real one?

There are so many answers to "2+2": which is the right one? We need to be aware that there are two different issues here, not one: the two issues are, "Is there a right answer," and "How many people know the answer?" They're separate questions, and even if nobody knew what "2+2" added up to but God Himself, it would not change the answer to the first question. Gravity existed before people had thought about its existence.

But you do raise a good point, indirectly, and I'll honour it: that good question is, if we're all simply thrown on our own imaginings, how would we know who God is? And the answer, of course, is that we never would. All voices might sound the same, and even if there were a "2+2" kind of truth among them, we couldn't find it.

Unless God spoke. Unless God told us who He is, and put it beyond reasonable doubt. Then, even if men refused to listen, He'd have put them beyond excuse. If they refuse to know, they should still know. But he'd have to make it clear, wouldn't he? He'd have to send some message, some Word that was so unequivocally right that only the truly obdurate of heart could continue to ignore it...

So the question simply becomes, "Has God spoken?" And what would you think is the answer?

Yeah yeah but which one is the real one? Most of these "the Supreme Being"s do speak to their followers, and tell them that they are the right ones.

2+2=4 is a bad example because it involves sanity, logic. So there 4 would represent atheism, because when we look with sanity and logic at the natural world, we equally can't find any of these "the Supreme Being"s, all we can go by are what their followers tell us.

[Immanuel Can]

There are many or thousands of "the Supreme Being"s, which one is the real one?

There are so many answers to "2+2": which is the right one? We need to be aware that there are two different issues here, not one: the two issues are, "Is there a right answer," and "How many people know the answer?" They're separate questions, and even if nobody knew what "2+2" added up to but God Himself, it would not change the answer to the first question. Gravity existed before people had thought about its existence.

But you do raise a good point, indirectly, and I'll honour it: that good question is, if we're all simply thrown on our own imaginings, how would we know who God is? And the answer, of course, is that we never would. All voices might sound the same, and even if there were a "2+2" kind of truth among them, we couldn't find it.

Unless God spoke. Unless God told us who He is, and put it beyond reasonable doubt. Then, even if men refused to listen, He'd have put them beyond excuse. If they refuse to know, they should still know. But he'd have to make it clear, wouldn't he? He'd have to send some message, some Word that was so unequivocally right that only the truly obdurate of heart could continue to ignore it...

So the question simply becomes, "Has God spoken?" And what would you think is the answer?

Yeah yeah but which one is the real one?

The God represented by Jesus Christ. Go and see, and you will know. Stop looking at numbers, or at what confusions other people are having; there's really no need for uncertainty. Jesus Christ is the certification of God. If you get to know Him, and then decide you still don't know God, you'll never know God. But if you see Him, you will.

It's actually that straightforward.

2+2=4 is a bad example because it involves sanity, logic. So there 4 would represent atheism,

Actually, 4 wouldn't ever represent Atheism, because Atheism is not a product of logic. It doesn't "add" up. It lacks even the "2+2" part, because it's not evidentiary, not rational, and not provable by anything.

And Atheists know that. That's why they always insist, "I've got nothing to prove." They insist on it, because they can't. But then, they're asking you to accept their (dis-)belief on the basis of nothing but their cynical tone.

If that's enough for anybody, it shouldn't be.

[Atla]

Yeah yeah but which one is the real one?

The God represented by Jesus Christ. Go and see, and you will know. Stop looking at numbers, or at what confusions other people are having; there's really no need for uncertainty. Jesus Christ is the certification of God. If you get to know Him, and then decide you still don't know God, you'll never know God. But if you see Him, you will.

It's actually that straightforward.

And this is the biggest reason why objective morality can't work for humanity. Followers of different "the Supreme Being"s will always clash with each other, because they've all gotten to know their respective "the Supreme Being"s and left behind the uncertainty.

Subjective morality also doesn't work for humanity, people are far too stupid for that.

I think there is only one way that humanity might be saved (well aside from being saved from ourselves by another intelligent species or by an actual God). Humans have to be made smarter and more empathetic mainly through gene engineering. But once the average is 20-30 IQ higher, objective morality is toast, it will automatically fade away. Many smart people just can't believe in all that childish nonsense. But a smarter and more empathetic humanity would probably be able to create a good shared pseudo-objective morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah yeah but which one is the real one?

The God represented by Jesus Christ. Go and see, and you will know. Stop looking at numbers, or at what confusions other people are having; there's really no need for uncertainty. Jesus Christ is the certification of God. If you get to know Him, and then decide you still don't know God, you'll never know God. But if you see Him, you will.

It's actually that straightforward.

And this is the biggest reason why objective morality can't work for humanity. Followers of different "the Supreme Being"s will always clash with each other, because they've all gotten to know their respective "the Supreme Being"s and left behind the uncertainty.

I don't think it's that. I think it's deliberate. People choose themselves over God. And their various "gods" offer them something they're afraid the real God will take away...like cultural solidarity, pride, the opportunity to indulge, the freedom to do as they please, their resources...it can be a lot of things. It's easier to stay with the "gods" they have self-chosen, or which they are rewarded by their culture for hanging onto: especially when their chosen "god" is themselves. So they just refuse to investigate further. They're happy with what they've got.

Subjective morality also doesn't work for humanity, people are far too stupid for that.

That seems contradictory. Why would people be "smart" to adopt a subjective morality, when they know for certain it bears no correspondence to objective truth? Rather, the opposite seems obvious: that only a fool would agree to follow a morality that was either purely of his own fantasy, or a morality made for him by other people.

Humans have to be made smarter and more empathetic mainly through gene engineering.

Consider what that means. It means you surrender your own mind to a mere human being, one just as fallible and corruptable as are we all, to "engineer" you to become -- not what you want to be, but -- what HE thinks it's useful for you to be.

Really? That's a pretty scary prospect.

Are you so sure that technical skill and moral superiority reside together in the "engineers"? Would history suggest your confidence in that is well-founded?

[Atla]

I don't think it's that. I think it's deliberate. People choose themselves over God. And their various "gods" offer them something they're afraid the real God will take away...like cultural solidarity, pride, the opportunity to indulge, the freedom to do as they please, their resources...it can be a lot of things. It's easier to stay with the "gods" they have self-chosen, or which they are rewarded by their culture for hanging onto: especially when their chosen "god" is themselves. So they just refuse to investigate further. They're happy with what they've got.

And that's, once again, what believers in other "the Supreme Being"s think about you. Hence why objective morality can't work for humanity.

That seems contradictory. Why would people be "smart" to adopt a subjective morality, when they know for certain it bears no correspondence to objective truth? Rather, the opposite seems obvious: that only a fool would agree to follow a morality that was either purely of his own fantasy, or a morality made for him by other people.

Objective morality is pure fantasy, so you're a fool then. At least subjective morality is only partially fantasy.