Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

But, like I said, even if there were a phenomenon that science had to concede shouldn't be possible, why does that unknown cause have to be God? If I couldn't explain something, I would just leave it unexplained.

You can. But it's good you're not a scientist, then. Their role is to try to answer questions that have not yet been explained.

As for this question, the reason the unknown cause has to be God is simple: there is just no plausible alternative. Whatever did create the universe, it had to be timeless, uncaused, immensely powerful and capable of instilling order and purpose out of nothing.

So use an old scientific principle called "recourse to the best explanation." What do you end up with?

If God could be the first cause, then a first cause must be a possibility, and if a first cause is a possibility, maybe the laws of physics themselves are the first cause.

That's a misunderstanding of what a "scientific law" is. What we call a "scientific law" is actually just a description of what we observe to already be in place...a regularity, a principle that appears universal. But laws don't "do" things. They only regulate the terms on which something that is being done is being done.

Something has to establish such laws; and something has to be being done already before they can apply. So the laws themselves cannot explain what's being done. We need a very different kind of explanation for that.

But that there is a First Cause of some kind is logically certain and undeniable, by way of a mathematical evidence that infinite regresses of causes never start. The universe has started; therefore, it is not the product of an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, there was a First Cause.

Now, we can debate the nature of that First Cause, of course; but we can't deny the necessity of there having been one. That would be irrational, since it's already mathematically certain.

All I'm saying is that if a first cause is possible, which you say it is,

Not just "possible." It's undeniable. The infinite-regress explanation just doesn't work at all.

Anyway, well done you; you've managed to get us talking about God again.

He's always been the main point in morality. So since morality's the topic, there's no getting away from it.

Yes, if you were discussing morality with someone who believed in God, then God may well be very relevant, but it is pointless you and I discussing morality if you think God is central to it, because I don't believe in God. I think I made that point earlier.

Subectivism, in its various forms, does not tell us anything about morality, because it's incapable of inducing duty. It can't even tell us we shouldn't kill each other. So that drives us to a simple alternative: either we believe in some objective morality, or we believe in no actual morality at all. All we have left are moral delusions.

This may be the case for you, but not for me and countless others.

No, it's everybody, alright. There are only two kinds of moral thinkers in the secular world: one is the Nihilist, who knows there is no such thing as morality. The other is the deluded person who imagines that either his will, his society, phenomenology, or tradition will supply the warrant for morality.

But, of course, these things won't stand up. They fail at the very first cynical hurdle: the first skeptic who asks, "Why should we agree?"

[iambiguous]

There are only two kinds of moral thinkers in the secular world: one is the Nihilist, who knows there is no such thing as morality. The other is the deluded person who imagines that either his will, his society, phenomenology, or tradition will supply the warrant for morality.

But, of course, these things won't stand up. They fail at the very first cynical hurdle: the first skeptic who asks, "Why should we agree?"

Again, in "that's entertainment" mode, I'll chuckle through this.

This nihilist does not "know that there is no morality". This nihilist merely believes "here and now" that morality clearly seems to be rooted historically, culturally and in terms of many, many vast and varied personal experiences out in particular worlds understood individually in particular ways.

Immanuel Can, on the other hand, does claim to know that the Christian God does in fact exist. He claims further to have evidence of that. But even with the souls of many here [including close friends] on the line, he refuses to divulge that evidence.

I mean, really, how sick is that?!!!

At the same time, he dares to call those -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- on paths other than his own deluded!

In fact, when confronted by them with why they should agree with him, he's back to "because it says so in the Christian Bible" and all those "short" YouTube videos.

Chuckle, chuckle and over and out.

[Immanuel Can]

This nihilist does not "know that there is no morality". This nihilist merely believes "here and now" that morality clearly seems to be rooted historically, culturally and in terms of many, many vast and varied personal experiences out in particular worlds understood individually in particular ways.

No, you don't understand Nihilism.

You are right to say that the Nihilist doesn't know what he claims to know. But beyond that, he doesn't believe in any of your attempted salvaging of contingent morality either.

A Nihilist does not believe in moral absolutes at all. Not even in moral contingent claims. Nihilism means "nothing-ism" it means that one doesn't believe in anything. It's all a fix, so far as the Nihilist is concerned.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh? So you've read Bloom, have you?

Forgive me for my doubts.

I have read the book, not the whole book, but sufficient to get its main theme.

Yeah, I've still got those doubts...you've read something, and probably little more than somebody's review online, I'll bet.

In any case, your response doesn't cover the essential problem: empathy is unreliable.

I downloaded the book in 07-13-2020; I went through it to get the main theme and refresh the points in response here.

Did you read my post here?
viewtopic.php?p=656771#p656771

People feel empathy for serial killers, sometimes...that doesn't make it moral. And it's not just your outliers, either: even the majority can be misled in this way, as when the general public becomes sympathetic to despots and abortionists.

So empathy is like a car repair manual in which half of the things written will fix your car, and half will cause it to explode in flames. And if you knew already your manual was that unreliable, would you use it? Of course not. Nobody would trust something that treacherous.

Now, it's not that empathy is always wrong, of course: sometimes it's right. But sometimes it definitely is wrong, and in pretty spectacular ways. And it can become wrong enough to induce people to feel strongly in favour of things that are actually wicked and hideous.

So there's no way it can be trusted as the touchstone of morality.

I stated,
Empathy is not the touchstone of morality; empathy is merely a tool within morality-proper which is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.

Btw, if you have read the book, Bloom did not equate empathy with sympathy and compassion.

As I had stated Bloom has wrongly associated empathy as absolutely related to morality.
That people has some feelings for serial killers and other evil doers, that is not empathy in the moral sense.
What is morality is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Morality.
The Moral FSK do not cover such acts as people having feelings for serial killers and other evil doers.

Having feelings for serial killers and other evil doers is a sort of perversion by perverted people with some kind of mental illness.

Bloom is barking up the wrong tree.
By Bloom's logic, we should be better off without sex because there is so much violence arising from the sexual drive;
we should be better off with the hunger drive because obesity has brought forth serious chronic diseases all over the world.

I stated;

If Bloom get his way with;
"we are better off without it [empathy]".
... and
"encouraging people to be less empathic",
we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

[Peter Holmes]

...we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

Why should we reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans?

Try beginning your reply as follows: We should reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans because,,,

Then try to list your reasons as simply and clearly as possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

Why should we reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans?

Try beginning your reply as follows: We should reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans because,,,

Then try to list your reasons as simply and clearly as possible.

Are you insisting humans should be permitted to kill humans in principle thus the possibility that the human species will go extinct.
That is not in line with nature and human nature.
This human nature is even implied in ALL criminal laws to date where the purpose is to reduce the number of humans killed by humans.
Criminal laws is not related to morality which should attempt to do better without threats of punishments.

[Iwannaplato]

...we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

Why should we reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans?

Try beginning your reply as follows: We should reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans because,,,

Then try to list your reasons as simply and clearly as possible.

Are you insisting humans should be permitted to kill humans in principle thus the possibility that the human species will go extinct.
That is not in line with nature and human nature.

He is trying to find out where your morality is coming from, because he can see that it isn't coming from analysis of brains. At no point is he suggestion policy, law, morals. You need to understand this basic idea related to philosophical discussion. If you say X is good because of Y. But someone doesn't think X is good because of Y, but they think X is good, they will often simply focus on the problem of the argument. Or why they think there is a problem. Also you give mixed messages about what the source of your morality is. I have tried to point this out also, for example focusing on how when looking at brains for objective moral facts, in the way you do, one could build a morality based on aggression.

There is a source of your moral positions you are not clear about. He is asking his questions to get that clarity.

I have seen this reaction on your part for a long time. They disagree with some or all of my assertions, therefore they like and will facilitate violence, killing etc. This is a category error.
PH could be out there, for all we know, as a human rights lawyer trying to set up legislation and education that reduces violence. Or he could be someone who instills attitudes like empathy in others much as you hope to.

He just wouldn't paint these acts/roles as coming from an objective morality.

I know you don't understand how his questioning your objectivity and arguments must be connected to his indifference to violence or his permitting of violence. But this is confused.

And it ends up meaning that you insult him (and others) when they question your positions, as if the only way to save the human race is by thinking about morality the way you do (calling your position morality proper is a minor way you imply this), considering it objective is the only way to reduce violence and for people to get along with less aggression and that somehow finding neuronal patterns in the brain makes your position objective and further the only objective one.

I doubt you consciously think precisely this way, but it comes off as, if you disagree with my position and arguments you merely accept violence, don't care about it, and are jeopardizing the human race. These are unwarrented conclusions and also they are setting up an I vs. Them that could easily lead to violence. For example if many decide oh, that VA guy he's right and those other people he says want to permit violence and are risking human survival by questioning and disagreeing with his positions and arguments.

This human nature is even implied in ALL criminal laws to date where the purpose is to reduce the number of humans killed by humans.
Criminal laws is not related to morality which should attempt to do better without threats of punishments.

[Harbal]

But, like I said, even if there were a phenomenon that science had to concede shouldn't be possible, why does that unknown cause have to be God? If I couldn't explain something, I would just leave it unexplained.

You can. But it's good you're not a scientist, then. Their role is to try to answer questions that have not yet been explained.

And it's good you're not a scientist, either, because their role is not to fill in the blanks with what they would most like the answer to be.

As for this question, the reason the unknown cause has to be God is simple:

Yes, it is simply because you refuse to consider any alternative.

there is just no plausible alternative.

So you are taking advantage of that by trying to slip under the radar with the least plausible alternative of all.

Whatever did create the universe, it had to be timeless, uncaused, immensely powerful and capable of instilling order and purpose out of nothing.

I've never heard a scientist put it that way.

So use an old scientific principle called "recourse to the best explanation." What do you end up with?

We end up where we always end up with you. All roads lead to God.

There are only two kinds of moral thinkers in the secular world: one is the Nihilist, who knows there is no such thing as morality. The other is the deluded person who imagines that either his will, his society, phenomenology, or tradition will supply the warrant for morality.

You are determined at all costs to deny the possibility of the existence of morality in a world without God, so everything you say on the matter will always be to that end. Even so, you should still take measures to make sure what you say doesn't become too ridiculous.

But, of course, these things won't stand up. They fail at the very first cynical hurdle: the first skeptic who asks, "Why should we agree?"

I can only repeat what I said in my last reply:

I know there is such a thing as subjective morality, because I experience and practice it regularly. How are you in any position to tell me that my subjective sense of morality places no duty or obligation on me? I am telling you that it does, and I am telling you from my own experience, not by means of some spurious line of reasoning.

[Peter Holmes]

I think theistic moral objectivism can be summarised, as follows.

1 If my team's god exists, then there are moral facts and morality is objective.

2 If my team's god doesn't exist, then there can be no morality.

These arguments are obviously useless, as are arguments for the existence of any team's god in the first place. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think theistic moral objectivism can be summarised, as follows.

1 If my team's god exists, then there are moral facts and morality is objective.

2 If my team's god doesn't exist, then there can be no morality.

These arguments are obviously useless, as are arguments for the existence of any team's god in the first place. The end.

Here is the theists' claim of objective morality;

1. Whatever fact is objective, it is independent of the human mind and conditions.
2. God as a fact is independent to the human mind and conditions.
3. God is the source of theistic moral facts.
4. Therefore theistic morality is objective.

BUT,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Thus theistic morality is grounded on an illusion,
however, theistic morality despite of low objectivity and illusory is nevertheless the most effective pseudo moral system at present.

[Peter Holmes]

I think theistic moral objectivism can be summarised, as follows.

1 If my team's god exists, then there are moral facts and morality is objective.

2 If my team's god doesn't exist, then there can be no morality.

These arguments are obviously useless, as are arguments for the existence of any team's god in the first place. The end.

Here is the theists' claim of objective morality;

1. Whatever fact is objective, it is independent of the human mind and conditions.
2. God as a fact is independent to the human mind and conditions.
3. God is the source of theistic moral facts.
4. Therefore theistic morality is objective.

BUT,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Thus theistic morality is grounded on an illusion,
however, theistic morality despite of low objectivity and illusory is nevertheless the most effective pseudo moral system at present.

No. I've explained why your conclusion that a god cannot exist is false, because your argument is fallacious.

[Immanuel Can]

I stated;

If Bloom get his way with;
"we are better off without it [empathy]".
... and
"encouraging people to be less empathic",
we will not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans in the future via morality-proper.

You are both overreacting, and your conclusion is not logical.

Bloom does not encourage people to be less empathetic. Nor does he say we're better off without it. Rather, he points out that we are wise not to let something that is a mere emotion take over from our judgment and become the basis for decision-making, especially in regard to morality.

And he's right about that. He gives good reasons for that conclusion, and I've given you additional ones. The evidence is in: when it is detached from sound reason, empathy becomes too easily misdirected, and actually can cause evil.

So we should still have empathy, Bloom says, but not let it drive the ship. That's a much more accurate and fair synopsis of Bloom's point.

Moreover, the conclusion you attribute to him is one he never draws -- and one which logically does not follow, even from your own earlier premises. Even were we to eliminate empathy, that does not mean we would "not be able to reduce the numbers of humans killed by humans." For there is no evidence empathy stops people from killing; and false empathy, empathy directed to a despot or to a "master race," for example, could get far MORE people killed.

So the point is, have empathy, but don't treat it like an infallible touchstone to morality, and don't suppose it's the basis of ethics. It is sometimes the basis of evil, as well.

Now you've got it...we can hope.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are taking advantage of that by trying to slip under the radar with the least plausible alternative of all.

It's not. You can see it's not, if you think about it. An intelligent Creator, if such exists, would be a far simpler and more straightforward explanation of the phenomenon of cosmic order than any alternative you can suggest. But you're going to end up with a plausibility calculation, either way.

Whatever did create the universe, it had to be timeless, uncaused, immensely powerful and capable of instilling order and purpose out of nothing.

I've never heard a scientist put it that way.

I have. You should maybe listen to some different ones.

So use an old scientific principle called "recourse to the best explanation." What do you end up with?

We end up where we always end up with you. All roads lead to God.

I'm not asking me. I'm asking you to figure out what the probabilities favour. I wouldn't ask you to make a judgment that a fair assessment of the alternatives did not suggest to you.

There are only two kinds of moral thinkers in the secular world: one is the Nihilist, who knows there is no such thing as morality. The other is the deluded person who imagines that either his will, his society, phenomenology, or tradition will supply the warrant for morality.

You are determined at all costs to deny the possibility of the existence of morality in a world without God,

No, I'm not, actually.

I fully acknowledge that in this world, there are people who claim to imagine there is a thing called "morality." They often follow it; and in that sense, they act in ways that are as conventionally "good" as anybody else. I freely admit that.

Where we part company is simply on whether or not they're deluding themselves. I think they're not: that they're actually intuiting the objective morality that lies behind their intuitions. You, as a subjectivist, would have to say they're just fooling themselves, and that there's nothing behind the "morality" they believe in. That's where we differ.

It's not over morality's existence, then, that we disagree; it's over its justification. We both agree that we see people acting "morally." However, I think it's objectively real, and justified in relation to God; you think it's only socially and phenomenologicaly "real," and merely imaginary in justification, because nothing more than the illusion of it backs it.

But, of course, these things won't stand up. They fail at the very first cynical hurdle: the first skeptic who asks, "Why should we agree?"

I can only repeat what I said in my last reply:

I know there is such a thing as subjective morality, because I experience and practice it regularly. How are you in any position to tell me that my subjective sense of morality places no duty or obligation on me?

It can't, logically speaking. Not because I say so, but because subjectivity imposes no duties. When subjectivity shifts, so does "the moral" that is being considered. And according to subjectivism, there's absolutely nothing to stop it from doing that.

Let's consider an example. Here's a moral issue upon which we both agree: slavery is wrong. Good?

There have been, in times past, and are even today, many people who have believed that slavery is virtuous and right. They have said that "inferior" people deserve to be made slaves, and that a right-thinking person does not elevate "inferior" persons to equality. And there haven't been just one or two such people, but whole nations and civilizations, such as the Mid-East Arabs, tribal Africans, the Hindus, the Southern Democrats and the modern eugenicists who have believed and acted upon this perceived duty.

I say they were objectively wrong to do so. And you, like me, do not approve slavery. But you cannot say, as a subjectivist, that they were actually wrong to do it; nor can you explain to them, even now, why they should surrender their slaves...if subjectivism were true. They meet every standard you have so far suggested for morality: they're acting on a subjective belief, and one that is backed by millions of similar opinions found in their particular groups and civlilizations. So the fact that you reject slavery is merely a matter of chance, if we believe in subjectivism; you were born in a society that scorns slavery, and they were born into societies that approve it. You can say you don't like what they do. You can say you never, yourself would do what they do. You can even say you find their behaviour revolting...

But being as subjectivist, you are not logically entitled actually to say that they are wrong. They, like you, are acting on a subjective moral principle. You would have to accept that you, yourself might be wrong for condemning them, or that neither of you is ever wrong -- "wrong" having no objective meaning in the case.

And if morality reduces to that, what light does it shed for the human race on the issue of slavery? None at all, then.

[Atla]

if you think about it. An intelligent Creator, if such exists, would be a far simpler and more straightforward explanation of the phenomenon of cosmic order than any alternative you can suggest.

This is easily one of the worst arguments in the history of philosophy. It is its own refutation, if you actually think about it.

[iambiguous]

This nihilist does not "know that there is no morality". This nihilist merely believes "here and now" that morality clearly seems to be rooted historically, culturally and in terms of many, many vast and varied personal experiences out in particular worlds understood individually in particular ways.

Immanuel Can, on the other hand, does claim to know that the Christian God does in fact exist. He claims further to have evidence of that. But even with the souls of many here [including close friends] on the line, he refuses to divulge that evidence.

I mean, really, how sick is that?!!!

At the same time, he dares to call those -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- on paths other than his own deluded!

In fact, when confronted by them with why they should agree with him, he's back to "because it says so in the Christian Bible" and all those "short" YouTube videos.

No, you don't understand Nihilism.

You are right to say that the Nihilist doesn't know what he claims to know. But beyond that, he doesn't believe in any of your attempted salvaging of contingent morality either.

Now this could have been posted by AJ, right? What on earth, given a particular context, is it supposed to mean?

Note to IC:

You choose the context. A context pertaining to a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective. We'll explore and then examine that which we might both claim to know about it and that which we either can or cannot actually demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to know. Deontologically. Or in regard to the Christian God's moral Commandments.

A Nihilist does not believe in moral absolutes at all. Not even in moral contingent claims. Nihilism means "nothing-ism" it means that one doesn't believe in anything. It's all a fix, so far as the Nihilist is concerned.

Again, this nihilist [me] does not exclude his own moral philosophy from his own moral philosophy. He flat-out acknolwedges that moral nihilism itself is just the existential embodiment of his own particular life. That, in fact, morality may well be objective. That, further, given a new experience, rlationship and/or access to information and knowledge, he may well change his mind and embrace objective morality again..

For example, suppose IC and I do examine those YouTube videos of his one by one and he is able to convince me that they do prove the Christian God does in fact exist.

Or one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...might be able to convince him that their own One True Path is more reasonable than Christianity.