Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

If Atheism were true, there's no reason at all he ever would have a conscience. But even Atheists do have a conscience. Therefore, Atheism is not true. Again, a very simple deduction.

That's deductively invalid. It needed to say "If Atheism were true, there's no POSSIBILTY at all he ever would have a conscience" which of course would be an absurd claim.

Sorry to point out the obvious, but the basic rules of logic instruct us that a universal claim is always to be understood as...universal. So the "no possibility" bit is always tacitly assumed to be there, in all such cases.

But if you can explain how pure natural forces would accidentally endow human beings with a faculty of consciousness which constantly deludes them as to the actual status of things in the material world, and impedes their actions accordingly, and yet makes them better at surviving than people who see things as they are, go ahead.

And bear in mind: if you succeed, this would mean that Theists (who believe in objective morals, after all) would be more adaptive and evolved than those who think they're delusions (i.e. than Atheists), and that evolutionary processes would consequently select for Theists rather than Atheists.

Have fun.

[FlashDangerpants]

If Atheism were true, there's no reason at all he ever would have a conscience. But even Atheists do have a conscience. Therefore, Atheism is not true. Again, a very simple deduction.

That's deductively invalid. It needed to say "If Atheism were true, there's no POSSIBILTY at all he ever would have a conscience" which of course would be an absurd claim.

Sorry to point out the obvious, but the basic rules of logic instruct us that a universal claim is always to be understood as...universal. So the "no possibility" bit is always tacitly assumed to be there, in all such cases.

That's an interesting rule of logic, does it have a name ('principle of ... ' or something like that I assume) or are you able to show me some reference in order for me to get up to speed with this rule please?

Otherwise I am tempted to stick with the traditional understanding; that even if Percy has no reason to suspect that Harry is banging his wife, that is not the same as Harry isn't banging Percy's wife. Evidence of absence and absence of evidence not being the same thing and all that.

But if you can explain how pure natural forces would accidentally endow human beings with a faculty of consciousness which constantly deludes them as to the actual status of things in the material world, and impedes their actions accordingly, and yet makes them better at surviving than people who see things as they are, go ahead.

You obviously have evolution in mind there, and as such the question is entirely unproblematic. If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand.

Seeing things as they really are is extremely useful for reproduction and survival when the things under examination are tigers and snakes. Th situation is much less clear for metaphysical concepts.

And bear in mind: if you succeed, this would mean that Theists (who believe in objective morals, after all) would be more adaptive and evolved than those who think they're delusions (i.e. than Atheists), and that evolutionary processes would consequently select for Theists rather than Atheists.

It's you who thinks godless morality can only be described as delusion. For normal human beings it is mostly customary common sense that doesn't really demand endless introspection nor particularly does it benefit from that.

You may decide that all customs are delusions unless backed by God if you wish, and for the sake of fun I will allow it. But that's a strange position for such a Conservative sort as you to want to take and plays very much into the hands of Progressive sorts if you think about it.





You don't actually think that the mere presence of human conscience is actual proof there is a God do you? Why would you choose such a weird hill to die on?

[Immanuel Can]

That's deductively invalid. It needed to say "If Atheism were true, there's no POSSIBILTY at all he ever would have a conscience" which of course would be an absurd claim.

Sorry to point out the obvious, but the basic rules of logic instruct us that a universal claim is always to be understood as...universal. So the "no possibility" bit is always tacitly assumed to be there, in all such cases.

That's an interesting rule of logic, does it have a name ('principle of ... ' or something like that I assume) or are you able to show me some reference in order for me to get up to speed with this rule please?

Not bothering. You can look it up, and any basic guide to logic should do.

My interest in your personal education is quite frankly, now pretty much zero.

But if you can explain how pure natural forces would accidentally endow human beings with a faculty of consciousness which constantly deludes them as to the actual status of things in the material world, and impedes their actions accordingly, and yet makes them better at surviving than people who see things as they are, go ahead.

You obviously have evolution in mind there, and as such the question is entirely unproblematic. If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand.

It's not, actually. The Nazis did "punish and shun," and much worse, all those who "do not cooperate in apparent good faith." So do all totalitarian regimes. I suspect you're not going to want to argue that was moral, or that it has proved sufficient to secure their survival.

And bear in mind: if you succeed, this would mean that Theists (who believe in objective morals, after all) would be more adaptive and evolved than those who think they're delusions (i.e. than Atheists), and that evolutionary processes would consequently select for Theists rather than Atheists.

It's you who thinks godless morality can only be described as delusion.

Well, it's the godless who have to think, logically, that morality is a delusion. Theists need believe no such thing. But Atheists have to: they can believe nothing else, without becoming irrationally uncommitted to their own Atheism. Nietzsche saw that. Maybe you should read him. He was wrong on God, but he'll tell you blunt truths about his doctrine of Atheism that you can't seem to hear from me.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sorry to point out the obvious, but the basic rules of logic instruct us that a universal claim is always to be understood as...universal. So the "no possibility" bit is always tacitly assumed to be there, in all such cases.

That's an interesting rule of logic, does it have a name ('principle of ... ' or something like that I assume) or are you able to show me some reference in order for me to get up to speed with this rule please?

Not bothering. You can look it up, and any basic guide to logic should do.

My interest in your personal education is quite frankly, now pretty much zero.

I guess I have no reason to assume you aren't making it up.

But if you can explain how pure natural forces would accidentally endow human beings with a faculty of consciousness which constantly deludes them as to the actual status of things in the material world, and impedes their actions accordingly, and yet makes them better at surviving than people who see things as they are, go ahead.

You obviously have evolution in mind there, and as such the question is entirely unproblematic. If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand.

It's not, actually. The Nazis did "punish and shun," and much worse, all those who "do not cooperate in apparent good faith." So do all totalitarian regimes. I suspect you're not going to want to argue that was moral, or that it has proved sufficient to secure their survival.

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for counscience, mercy and pity. Nazis have nothign to do with anything

And bear in mind: if you succeed, this would mean that Theists (who believe in objective morals, after all) would be more adaptive and evolved than those who think they're delusions (i.e. than Atheists), and that evolutionary processes would consequently select for Theists rather than Atheists.

It's you who thinks godless morality can only be described as delusion.

Well, it's the godless who have to think, logically, that morality is a delusion. Theists need believe no such thing. But Atheists have to: they can believe nothing else, without becoming irrationally uncommitted to their own Atheism. Nietzsche saw that. Maybe you should read him. He was wrong on God, but he'll tell you blunt truths about his doctrine of Atheism that you can't seem to hear from me.

I've read Nietzsche, he is unimportant to me.

You should read me, you seem to lose track halfway through sentences. It's you who thinks godless morality can only be described as delusion. For normal human beings it is mostly customary common sense that doesn't really demand endless introspection nor particularly does it benefit from that.

[Skepdick]

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for

Never could understand why the evolutionary advantage of rape was immoral though....

Diversification of genes.
Maximisation of offspring.

It practically ensures the survival of the species.

[Immanuel Can]

You obviously have evolution in mind there, and as such the question is entirely unproblematic. If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand.

It's not, actually. The Nazis did "punish and shun," and much worse, all those who "do not cooperate in apparent good faith." So do all totalitarian regimes. I suspect you're not going to want to argue that was moral, or that it has proved sufficient to secure their survival.

Nazis have nothign to do with anything

They, and all the totalitarian regimes, are obvious countercases that illustrate the failure of that attempt at explanation. That's what they "have to do" with things.

It's you who thinks godless morality can only be described as delusion.

Well, it's the godless who have to think, logically, that morality is a delusion. Theists need believe no such thing. But Atheists have to: they can believe nothing else, without becoming irrationally uncommitted to their own Atheism. Nietzsche saw that. Maybe you should read him. He was wrong on God, but he'll tell you blunt truths about his doctrine of Atheism that you can't seem to hear from me.

I've read Nietzsche, he is unimportant to me.

I can understand why. He says, very bluntly, what you are afraid to recognize.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not, actually. The Nazis did "punish and shun," and much worse, all those who "do not cooperate in apparent good faith." So do all totalitarian regimes. I suspect you're not going to want to argue that was moral, or that it has proved sufficient to secure their survival.

Nazis have nothign to do with anything

They, and all the totalitarian regimes, are obvious countercases that illustrate the failure of that attempt at explanation. That's what they "have to do" with things.

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for conscience, mercy and pity.

Well, it's the godless who have to think, logically, that morality is a delusion. Theists need believe no such thing. But Atheists have to: they can believe nothing else, without becoming irrationally uncommitted to their own Atheism. Nietzsche saw that. Maybe you should read him. He was wrong on God, but he'll tell you blunt truths about his doctrine of Atheism that you can't seem to hear from me.

I've read Nietzsche, he is unimportant to me.

I can understand why. He says, very bluntly, what you are afraid to recognize.

For normal human beings, morality is mostly customary common sense that doesn't really demand endless introspection nor particularly does it benefit from that. You may say that customs aren't justified by immense heavenly power and I will cheerfully agree, and if you want to say all customs are delusions then I won't stand in your way.

[FlashDangerpants]

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for

Never could understand why the evolutionary advantage of rape was immoral though....

Diversification of genes.
Maximisation of offspring.

It practically ensures the survival of the species.

As I already wrote: "If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand." Rape does not meet the standard of apparent good faith.

[Skepdick]

As I already wrote: "If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand." Rape does not meet the standard of apparent good faith.

So philosophy's uncooperative/disagreeable nature and the punishment of Socrates would be deemed moral in a society which values cooperation?
Dissent is uncooperative, therefore immoral.

What the fuck is "good" faith anyway an who decides whether I am cooperating on "good"; or "bad" faith?

Your cultural relativism doesn't explain why your culture's norms are good; or moral.

Rape does not meet the standard of apparent good faith.

Yes, it does. It's for the greater good - an evolutionary advantage, so it's necessarily in good faith.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I already wrote: "If an animal forms herds, troupes, prides or cooperative societies in general then a behavioural adaptation to punish or shun those who do not cooperate in apparent good faith would be all that is needed to meet this demand." Rape does not meet the standard of apparent good faith.

So philosophy's uncooperative/disagreeable nature and the punishment of Socrates would be deemed moral in a society which values cooperation?
Dissent is uncooperative, therefore immoral.

What the fuck is "good" faith anyway?

For the purposes of what I have been writing I only needed to account for how evolution MIGHT furnish humanity with a conscience in order to show that a specific claimed deduction lacked deductive validity. I didn't even have to be right to pull that trick off.

At some point evolution's part in furnishing us with a faculty gives way in explanatory terms to culture when it comes to the matter of what use we make of that faculty.

I didn't write "apparent good faith" accidentally.

[Skepdick]

For the purposes of what I have been writing I only needed to account for how evolution MIGHT furnish humanity with a conscience in order to show that a specific claimed deduction lacked deductive validity. I didn't even have to be right to pull that trick off.

At some point evolution's part in furnishing us with a faculty gives way in explanatory terms to culture when it comes to the matter of what use we make of that faculty.

I didn't write "apparent good faith" accidentally.

Ah yes well, the "At some point" argument.

At some point moral things become immoral.
And at some point immoral things become moral too.

This switcharoo just sneaks up on you...

[Immanuel Can]

Nazis have nothign to do with anything

They, and all the totalitarian regimes, are obvious countercases that illustrate the failure of that attempt at explanation. That's what they "have to do" with things.

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for conscience, mercy and pity.

Evolution can only account for things by way of survival value. Mercy and pity are not survival virtues. Nietzsche saw that clearly, which is why he ranked them among the "slave moralties."

For normal human beings, morality is mostly customary common sense that doesn't really demand endless introspection

A more accurate way of putting this is simply to say that most people prefer not to think. Thus, they hold contradictory attitudes, and never examine them further, so long as nothing disturbs them. Atheists are exactly that sort, for the most part: Atheism's non-evidentiary, non-scientific, amoral, devoid of evidence and logically irrational. But it never really seems to bother the Atheists that it is that way, because so many of them simply prefer not to think.

"No brain, no pain," as the saying goes. Nietzsche was braver.

[FlashDangerpants]

They, and all the totalitarian regimes, are obvious countercases that illustrate the failure of that attempt at explanation. That's what they "have to do" with things.

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for conscience, mercy and pity.

Evolution can only account for things by way of survival value. Mercy and pity are not survival virtues. Nietzsche saw that clearly, which is why he ranked them among the "slave moralties."

I don't consider Nietzsche much of an authority on evolution, sorry to say. And I saw what you wrote about common ancestors and primordial ooze so I know you aren't much of an authority on it either.

To address the quality of your deduction which is why we are having this conversation, I needed only to show that there could be something other than God to explain conscience and that task is evidently complete. Your "deduction" was invalid.

For normal human beings, morality is mostly customary common sense that doesn't really demand endless introspection

A more accurate way of putting this is simply to say that most people prefer not to think. Thus, they hold contradictory attitudes, and never examine them further, so long as nothing disturbs them. Atheists are exactly that sort, for the most part: Atheism's non-evidentiary, non-scientific, amoral, devoid of evidence and logically irrational. But it never really seems to bother the Atheists that it is that way, because so many of them simply prefer not to think.

"No brain, no pain," as the saying goes. Nietzsche was braver.

An acceptably accurate way of putting things is that obsessively religious zealots seldom suffer from uncertainty and thus tend to assert moral facts which somehow combine God's will with everything the zealot himself happens to believe. But it never really seems to bother the Zealot that it is that way, because so many of them simply prefer not to think.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution can easily account for the existence today of human emotional states and propositional attitudes sufficient to account for conscience, mercy and pity.

Evolution can only account for things by way of survival value. Mercy and pity are not survival virtues. Nietzsche saw that clearly, which is why he ranked them among the "slave moralties."

I don't consider Nietzsche much of an authority on evolution,

I'm so entertained by your transparent strategy. It goes, "Reword what they said, make them seem to say something they didn't, then dismiss it as unreasonable, taking an imperious stand on how foolish they've been." I love it.

But I have to say, you're fooling nobody...certainly not me, and probably not anybody else, either. Still, it's amusing to see the attempt. Not as funny as the "Trump...you"... thing, but close.

I said that Nietzsche ranked your alleged virtues as vices. I did not say he was saying something directly about evolution, nor was he presenting himself as an authority on that subject. The common touchpoint is the "survival" explanation, which Nietzsche could see was simply not a good argument for pity or mercy. He saw them as manipulations by the weak, designed to avoid domination by those who really deserve to survive, the strong. As such, they would actually be anti-survival qualities, things that would pollute the process of human progress and natural evolution, as Nietzsche conceived of it.

Anyway, he was an Atheist, so that's the way he thought. But it's certainly quite the opposite from the explanation you want everybody to believe is obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

Drool over your own nonsense.

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

If you liked that one .... look what he done below...

Evolution can only account for things by way of survival value. Mercy and pity are not survival virtues. Nietzsche saw that clearly, which is why he ranked them among the "slave moralties."

I don't consider Nietzsche much of an authority on evolution,

I'm so entertained by your transparent strategy. It goes, "Reword what they said, make them seem to say something they didn't, then dismiss it as unreasonable, taking an imperious stand on how foolish they've been." I love it.

^^ I just think Lacewing deserved a chance to read that most hypocritical little quotelet without having to wade through this whole conversation. She should find something amusing in it.

But I have to say, you're fooling nobody...certainly not me, and probably not anybody else, either. Still, it's amusing to see the attempt. Not as funny as the "Trump...you"... thing, but close.

I said that Nietzsche ranked your alleged virtues as vices. I did not say he was saying something directly about evolution, nor was he presenting himself as an authority on that subject. The common touchpoint is the "survival" explanation, which Nietzsche could see was simply not a good argument for pity or mercy. He saw them as manipulations by the weak, designed to avoid domination by those who really deserve to survive, the strong. As such, they would actually be anti-survival qualities, things that would pollute the process of human progress and natural evolution, as Nietzsche conceived of it.

Anyway, he was an Atheist, so that's the way he thought. But it's certainly quite the opposite from the explanation you want everybody to believe is obvious.

I was arguing that evolution can account for sympathy pity and conscience and a fuckton of other stuff, you tried to cut that down with the authority of you and Nietzsche and no evidence.... Evolution can only account for things by way of survival value. Mercy and pity are not survival virtues. Nietzsche saw that clearly, which is why he ranked them among the "slave moralties." and before you edited out most of what I wrote I also said you aren't an expert on evolution either. You have no workable argument that evolution cannot have furnished humanity with the faculty of conscience and that's why you keep invoking the N-word.


To address the quality of your deduction which is why we are having this conversation, I needed only to show that there could be something other than God to explain conscience and that task is evidently complete. Your "deduction" was invalid.