Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

The problem with Atheism

One of the problems with atheism is that some people insist on giving it a capital "A" when it doesn't deserve one.

The problem with Atheists is that they want you not to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and not a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of Atheism's ideological nature.

[Will Bouwman]

If an omniscient entity doesn't know that doesn't make an oracle machine a god, it isn't omniscient.

That's a predictable response/justification given the answer you've chosen...

Well done for calling something you didn't predict predictable.

One difference between an oracle machine and a god is that an oracle machine definitely doesn't exist.

Sure. In exactly the same way that every other theoretical construct definitely doesn't exist.

Numbers. Minkowski spaces. Infinity. Gravity.

Gravity definitely does exist. It is whatever causes two objects with mass to be attracted, and in case it's news to you, all objects with mass are attracted to each other at least up to a galactic scale.

Have a go when you understand it yourself.

That's what I am doing. Thanks.

You think?

[Skepdick]

Well done for calling something you didn't predict predictable.

If you were omniscient you'd know that I did.

Gravity definitely does exist. It is whatever causes two objects with mass to be attracted

Sure. As soon as you assume the "attraction" (heh.. see below) is caused by something that something necessarily exists in the theory. In exactly the same sense that numbers, Minkowski spaces and Gods exist. In the theory.

But if you don't asume a causal explanation - gravity needs not exist.

and in case it's news to you, all objects with mass are attracted to each other at least up to a galactic scale.

"Attracted" is an interesting choice of word for sure. Definitely the words Newton would've chosen. Definitely not the words Einstein would've chosen.

You think?

Always. You should try it.

[JaySim94]

The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective, because they express value judgements, rather than make falsifiable factual claims. And two examples illustrate the distinction.

1 The assertion people eat animals and their products is a fact – a true factual assertion. But the vegan assertion eating animals and their products is wrong expresses a moral judgement, not a fact. The two assertions have completely different functions.

2 That some states execute some criminals is true. But that states should execute some criminals – that execution is morally justifiable – is a judgement. If there were a moral fact of the matter, we could not argue about the judgement.

An argument that objective morality is evidence for the existence of anything – let alone a god – is unsound, because morality is not objective. It is rational to have sound reasons for our moral judgements, such as wanting to promote individual well-being. But they remain judgements, so they are subjective.

Trouble is, the assertion morality is subjective seems wrong and offensive. It seems to mean that whatever someone judges to be morally right or wrong is indeed morally right or wrong – so that anything goes, and moral relativism and anarchy is the result.

But that is to forget the is-ought distinction. To say an action is morally right or wrong is to express a judgement, not to state a fact. So an action is not – and does not become - morally right or wrong just because someone believes it is.

The expressions objective morality and moral fact are contradictions – or they could be called oxymorons. But our moral values and assertions matter deeply to us, so the mistake of believing there are moral facts is easy to explain. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

But, ironically, if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant. The assertion this is good because I say – or a god says – it is good has no place in a rational moral debate. An argument from authority is as mistaken for moral as it is for factual assertions. So the theistic argument from objective morality undermines itself.

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773

Well, most theistic philosophers recognize this problem, in my opinion because they depend upon other arguments to back up their claims. In other words, the most critical problem is proving the existence of god. The fine tuning arguments are fallacious because they postulate the existence of something in a circular manner; for example, William Paley’s watchmaker. If god exists then that would be more cogent to base their claims on god when it comes to objective morality. Remember, J.L Mackie posited that if objective morals exist, god must exist.

[Harbal]

The problem with Atheism

One of the problems with atheism is that some people insist on giving it a capital "A" when it doesn't deserve one.

The problem with Atheists is that they want you not to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and not a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of Atheism's ideological nature.

Atheists simply don't believe in the existence of God. What an atheist does or does not believe other than that, or what he "wants you to notice", is down to the individual. Far from being an ideology, atheism is a lack of ideology; specifically the lack of a theistic ideology. If you can't promote Christianity without making up ridiculous stories about what atheism is, surely it must make you question if Christianity is worthy of promotion. An ideology that necessitates such dishonesty is not to be admired.

[Immanuel Can]

One of the problems with atheism is that some people insist on giving it a capital "A" when it doesn't deserve one.

The problem with Atheists is that they want you not to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and not a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of Atheism's ideological nature.

Atheists simply don't believe in the existence of God. What an atheist does or does not believe other than that, or what he "wants you to notice", is down to the individual.

Would that were true.

Would that Atheists tended to stop at "Well, I, personally, don't have any evidence of God." How nice if they were than honest, moral and truthful. But many are not. Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence," or "God does not exist." What else can one make of a claim like that of Dawkins, that Theism is a "delusion." (his word, famously) Or what about when Hitchens goes about claiming it "poisons everything." Lovely. The desire of Atheists to evangelize their disbelief is considerable. And their patience with the idea that some people do not share their personal ignorance is often zero.

But Atheist dogma requires evidence. And they have none. So their disbelief is ideological, not merely personal. It's a dogma, based on nothing in particular, that they want to spread. They love to mock anybody who believes there even might be a God, and call them "unscientific" or "irrational" -- all the while, being absolutely unscientific and irrational themselves.

Charming.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If, as you agree, a thing exists before we perceive, know and describe it, then its existence is 'mind-independent'. And the '13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history' - that you agree occurred - must have been 'mind-independent'. You demolish your own argument.

Strawman.
I had NEVER agreed '...its existence is 'mind independent' in the absolute sense.

"the '13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billion years of organic history'" is only true as conditioned within the human-based science-cosmology-biology FSK.

Offs. Those billions of years weren't true or false. They just occurred - as you agree. That we know about and describe them in human ways is irrelevant. It doesn't make them 'mind-dependent'.

Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWS the conclusions of its existence cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of the human conditions.

Offs. Yes, our conclusion that something existed or exists is a human conclusion. But that doesn't mean that its existence depends on us. Ffs. Stop mumbling the mantra and THINK.

THINK?? You are the one who is thinking shallowly, narrowly and dogmatically.

Your claim above is not an argument but merely an emotional pleading as driven by an evolutionary default.
Any child can understand what you are claiming, i.e. that whatever is outside us [Big Bang, apples, sweet out there exist independent of the child or any human]. Adults cling to such thinking as philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

FFS.. are you thinking philosophically?
It is so well known philosophically,

• In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

How can you ignore the above challenges between Philosophical-Realism vs ANTI-Philosophical_Realism?
It is very philosophically immature of you to simply handwave and brush it off like you do above.

The onus is on you to prove your philosophical_realism is realistic and counter challenges from ANTI-Philosophical_Realists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would that Atheists tended to stop at "Well, I, personally, don't have any evidence of God." How nice if they were than honest, moral and truthful. But many are not. Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence," or "God does not exist." What else can one make of a claim like that of Dawkins, that Theism is a "delusion." (his word, famously) Or what about when Hitchens goes about claiming it "poisons everything." Lovely. The desire of Atheists to evangelize their disbelief is considerable. And their patience with the idea that some people do not share their personal ignorance is often zero.

But Atheist dogma requires evidence. And they have none. So their disbelief is ideological, not merely personal. It's a dogma, based on nothing in particular, that they want to spread. They love to mock anybody who believes there even might be a God, and call them "unscientific" or "irrational" -- all the while, being absolutely unscientific and irrational themselves.

Charming.

It is so philosophical immature to ask a not-a-theist to show evidence [empirical-rational] why they are not-a-theist.

The reason why non-theists are not-a-theist(s) is because there are no direct evidences [empirical-rational] to convince them that God exists as real, e.g. the moon [and the like] is real based on empirical-rational evidence that can be verified and justified by a human-based scientific FSK as real and true.

As a non-theist I have provided sound argument why 'It is impossible for God to exist as real"
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
You have not countered this argument.

I have also explained why theism is delusional, i.e. God is an illusion [albeit useful illusion] and that there are many cases of the mentally ill who insisted they have personal experiences of a God but somehow do not make such claims when they have taken the correct medicine to cure their delusion.
e.g.
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are cases where those who suffer brain damage and therefrom experience God or Godlike experiences;
My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&t=8s

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
because as one grow older, the neurons that inhibit irrationality e.g. God existence, atrophied.

Experiences of God can also be trigger with a "God Helmet" using magnetic waves directed a certain parts of the brain.

Dr. Persinger's God Helmet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

There are so much evidence that drugs, hallucinogens and other chemicals that can trigger the experience of the being of God, thus leading many to believe in theism.
Navy SEAL Takes DMT and Meets God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7cc_v_S34

The Mystery of DMT "God Encounter" Experiences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOtrLM6LwY
"More that 50% of atheists who take DMT no longer identify as atheists"

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

Seeing the Brain 'seeing-God'
viewtopic.php?t=40337

I was once a theist for a long time and personally, have had god-linked altered states of consciousness; later I discovered they were all in the brain; there is no real God out there outside the human brain.

There are loads of other evidences that demonstrate the belief in God [theism] is due to happenings in the human brain.

What is your counter to the above?

[Harbal]

The problem with Atheists is that they want you not to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and not a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of Atheism's ideological nature.

Atheists simply don't believe in the existence of God. What an atheist does or does not believe other than that, or what he "wants you to notice", is down to the individual.

Would that were true.

It is true. Atheists are just people, and they behave in all sorts of different ways, just as religious people do.

Would that Atheists tended to stop at "Well, I, personally, don't have any evidence of God."

In my experience, A believer is far more likely to spontaneously bring up the subject of God than an atheist is. I'm sure most atheists don't spend their days thinking about the none existence of God, let alone talking about it.

How nice if they were than honest, moral and truthful. But many are not. Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence," or "God does not exist." What else can one make of a claim like that of Dawkins, that Theism is a "delusion." (his word, famously) Or what about when Hitchens goes about claiming it "poisons everything." Lovely. The desire of Atheists to evangelize their disbelief is considerable.

The desire of people like Dawkins and Hitchens to "evangelize their disbelief" may be considerable, but your attempt to pass them off as typical atheists is not very "honest, moral and truthful", is it?

But Atheist dogma requires evidence. And they have none.

Why more so than any other dogma? Your religious dogma does not come with any evidence that is strong enough to convince anybody, as can be seen day after day on this forum.

So their disbelief is ideological, not merely personal. It's a dogma, based on nothing in particular, that they want to spread.

But what about atheists who are not interested in spreading any kind of dogma? I admit that some atheists cannot resist reacting to religious nonsense when they are confronted by it, but very few have any interest in spreading their disbelief. I think the attitude of the typical atheist is: I don't care what you believe as long as you don't bother me with it.

They love to mock anybody who believes there even might be a God, and call them "unscientific" or "irrational" -- all the while, being absolutely unscientific and irrational themselves.

And who constitute this "they"? Is it all atheists, most atheists, just some atheists, a few atheists, or only the very rare type of atheist such as Dawkins, or Hitchens?

[Lacewing]

How do you know there is only one reality?

Definitionallly.

"Reality" means "all that is real."

'All' doesn't mean 'one'.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it all atheists, most atheists, just some atheists, a few atheists, or only the very rare type of atheist such as Dawkins, or Hitchens?

It depends. If there were silent Atheists, nobody would know about them. But there are a lot of Atheists, even on this forum, who are far from silent about their beliefs, and far from shy about saying that other people have no right to believe what they themselves refuse to believe.

Did you not also say, "Your religious dogma does not come with any evidence that is strong enough to convince anybody, as can be seen day after day on this forum." If you were being non-evangelizing, you'd have said something more modest, surely, like "I have not yet seen evidence that convinces me." Which would be fair, but unimpressive -- and that, for Atheists, is the real problem: a personal confession of ignorance is not a powerful statement against Theism. And that's clearly what they prefer to make, for obvious reasons.

I don't also think Dawkins and Hitchens are "rare" in any important sense: rather, they've been celebrated, invited to speak around, and got plenty of headlines, to say nothing of having their own books. Somebody's backing them, and it's probably not the Theists.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you know there is only one reality?

Definitionallly.

"Reality" means "all that is real."

'All' doesn't mean 'one'.

That response doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said. You need to explain, I guess.

[Lacewing]

Would that Atheists tended to stop at "Well, I, personally, don't have any evidence of God."

In my experience, A believer is far more likely to spontaneously bring up the subject of God than an atheist is. I'm sure most atheists don't spend their days thinking about the none existence of God, let alone talking about it.

Agreed. This forum is a place where we can face-off about claims and ideas. This forum is not a typical environment or accurate representation of humankind. Outside this philosophy forum, I don't talk about theism with believers. I just notice religious ideas continuing to permeate our culture, and I think our broader environment (shared by everyone) should be protected from that.

How nice if they were than honest, moral and truthful.

That coming from you.

Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence"

More like "there is no evidence", "show me your evidence", and "believe whatever you want but don't claim it applies to me".

I think it would be fair to say that the theists on this forum do not represent theism to any significant degree... and the non-theists on this forum do not represent atheists to any significant degree. Perspectives and practices are all over the map. I think the implications of that are inspiring because it reflects something much more vast than any particular human ideas/beliefs.

[Lacewing]

Definitionallly.

"Reality" means "all that is real."

'All' doesn't mean 'one'.

That response doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said. You need to explain, I guess.

According to the definition that you gave to prove there's one reality... you said that "Reality" means ALL that is real. That does not prove your claim because the definition would have to be something like: "Reality" means ONE that is real.

The definition for reality is actually: the state or quality of being real. That can apply to a lot of viewpoints! How can you know there's actually only one?

[Will Bouwman]

But if you don't asume a causal explanation - gravity needs not exist.

You're right; it could be a coincidence that every atom in the universe behaves as if it is attracted to every other.