Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

I suggest it's clearer to reserve 'true' and 'false' to factual assertions, rather than (elliptically) to belief systems. So here's my go.

P1 If there are no gods, then humans can have no moral conscience.
P2 Humans have moral conscience.
C Therefore, there are gods.

And here I think the unsoundness is even more obvious.

I factualy assert that it's impossible to have morals without an non-natural? un-natural? super-natural? (choose your prefix, nitpicker) source of morals.

Therefore there is a source of morals that is beyond nature.

If you choose to call that moral source "God" that's your problem.

[Iwannaplato]

P1 If there are no gods, then humans can have no moral conscience.

If you have to have a God to have a conscience, you don't have a conscience.
You have obedience or fear of God or a 'good boy' syndrome or a possible lack of will or.....I would guess there are other possibilities, but I don't see that you have a moral conscience then. You have a voice in your head you listen to that you don't identify with and think of as God or relaying information from God.
And, heck, it might be the wrong voice.
History is littered with theists and atheists following voices that lead to things I personally experience as horrible.

I think Abraham made a mistake and God was disappointed he would follow the order.

[Harbal]

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.

Or you could to it this way: if Atheism were true, morality would have to be a delusion. But morality is real, and we all are conscious of that fact intuitively, by way of conscience. Therefore, our moral intuitions also tell us Atheism is not true.

Atheistically speaking, conscience is both inexplicable as to why it would ever exist, and delusory because it cannot assert anything that governs relations between moral agents.

If you say so.

Never trust an Immanuel Can bearing "deductions", he is usually purveying overripe non-sequiturs in a fake 'Guggi' handbag.

What I would do well to remember, and those who do not already know it should realise, is that IC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate. God's lawyer, if you like. His job is to discredit any evidence that is not in his favour, and present his own as forcefully as possible. He isn't interested in the truth; his only goal is to win his case, which he can never do, of course, because there is no judge or jury.

[Immanuel Can]

...your reformulation counts as
P1 If atheism is true then humans cannot have conscience
P2 humans do have conscience
C Therefore Ateism is not true

Those are your words, not mine, obviously. And if you want to argue them, you'll have to argue with yourself. Transparent misrepresentation.

But at least you found out something about what truth, validity and soundness are. Good for you.

Here's what I did say:

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.

Valid, of course. Also worded as a hypothetical premise, because in point of fact, I don't at all think Atheism is true. So it's not surprising to me that Atheists do have conscience, because Atheism is false; they've all got the conscience God gave them...they've just got no reasonable explanation for WHY they have one, since it does not, contrary to your claim, serve some obvious "evolutionary" or survival function. Societies often are driven by evil and self-destructive things, in fact, and Nietzsche argues that the road to progress is through a kind of greater emphasis on survival and domination of the ubermenschen, not by capitulation to things like "pity" and "mercy," which he calls "slave morality."

So your objections don't work.

[Immanuel Can]

IC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate.

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

[Skepdick]

IC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate.

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

And in the tone of Evolutionary biologist.

You are simply preaching unity/normativity in theological terms.

It certainly has some evolutionary advantage for all of us to converge to the most effective strategy. Once that strategy has been identified.

But the flip-side to your coin is once we adopt the strategy peddled by theists; and then we find anoter Better strategy, you gotta switch lanes to the New Best too...

Integrate or MIgrate. Choices choices choices.

[FlashDangerpants]

You can try very hard to lose an argument with IC, but he won't allow it.

[Skepdick]

You can try very hard to lose an argument with IC, but he won't allow it.

That's exactly how strong normativity works.

But it's quite telling that you think the mind/language games are about winning and losing... It's about falling in line.

It's just proselytism by many names. Persuasion. Winning minds...

[Dontaskme]

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident.

Only an immoral man knows morality.

What is morality? It is not the following of enjoined rules of conduct.

It is not a question of standing above temptations, or of conquering hate, anger, greed, lust and violence.


Questioning your actions before and after creates the moral problem.

What is responsible for this situation is the faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong and influencing your actions accordingly.

Life is action. Unquestioned action is morality.

Questioning your actions is destroying the expression of life.

A person who lets life act in its own way without the protective movement of thought has no self to defend.

What need will he have to lie or cheat or pretend or to commit any other act which his society considers immoral?

[LuckyR]

IC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate.

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

Part of the problem is that the existance referred to by being, as in "There is" is not specified. Most atheists I know fully acknowledge the intersubjective existance of many gods. Though just about all theists make the error of attributing physical existance to a metaphysical entity (such as gods).

[Immanuel Can]

IC is not here to get at the truth, or give any consideration to alternative opinions; he is here solely as God's advocate.

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

Part of the problem is that the existance referred to by being, as in "There is" is not specified.

Let's specify it. That's an obvious mental error, and one we can clear up quickly.

To "exist" or "be" normally means "in actuality," or "in reality," not merely "as a delusion" or "as an imaginative fixture in somebody's belief system." And, in fact, that's the way even most religious people intend to signify it, whenever they say that their particular God or gods "exist." They don't mean, "somebody just believes in these gods." They mean, "this is the real one, the true one, the only kind or kinds there actually are."

If we say that Atheists "acknowledge the intersubjective existance" of something, we're only saying that they are so silly that they don't distinguish between the two uses of "exist," or between real-world items and mere cultural artifices. They're making a serious error of amphiboly, switching out the middle term in their syllogism and imagining that as some sort of achievement of cognition or "open-mindedness," when it's really just foggy thinking on their part.

[Lacewing]

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.

It's astounding, really... the way he describes his own behavior... his own demented thoughts... and projects it onto other people.

But I have to say, you're fooling nobody...certainly not me, and probably not anybody else, either.

This has been said to I.C. countless times.

Not as funny as the "Trump...you"... thing, but close.

And his childish avoidance of context and points by frequently claiming this, while completely ignoring how much he says "Biden...you".

The value from all of it is what he demonstrates on behalf of his blind and desperate self-serving righteousness. People need to see such potential of some who misuse the Christian banner. The greatest evils of theism are born within, and perpetuated through, theism. Where else would be more perfect for evil to try to HIDE? And yet, few theists acknowledge this! They project it onto non-believers instead.

[Immanuel Can]

...he says "Biden...you".

Only when Biden is relevant.

People say "Trump...you" for practically no reason at all, often...just to distract, mostly.

[LuckyR]

Thank you. How kind of you. Would that I could be "God's advocate". But you'll find that "truth" and "what God advocates" are always identical.

Truth is always very singular: it has this annoying tendency to render one kind of opinion reasonable, and another one foolish, whenever the truth itself becomes evident. And one thing for sure: between the "There is no God" of Atheism, and the "There is God" of Theism, there is no possibility of one being true without the other being dead false. So some "alternative opinion" is going to end up being dead wrong, there.

So "alternative opinions" are only good if they are true ones. Other than that, "alternative opinions" is just a synonym for "errors." And while it may be our society's habit to put inclusiveness before truth, there's no wisdom in so doing.

Part of the problem is that the existance referred to by being, as in "There is" is not specified.

Let's specify it. That's an obvious mental error, and one we can clear up quickly.

To "exist" or "be" normally means "in actuality," or "in reality," not merely "as a delusion" or "as an imaginative fixture in somebody's belief system." And, in fact, that's the way even most religious people intend to signify it, whenever they say that their particular God or gods "exist." They don't mean, "somebody just believes in these gods." They mean, "this is the real one, the true one, the only kind or kinds there actually are."

If we say that Atheists "acknowledge the intersubjective existance" of something, we're only saying that they are so silly that they don't distinguish between the two uses of "exist," or between real-world items and mere cultural artifices. They're making a serious error of amphiboly, switching out the middle term in their syllogism and imagining that as some sort of achievement of cognition or "open-mindedness," when it's really just foggy thinking on their part.

Well, despite your contrary opinion, many intersubjective entities are considered to be "real" and to exist in reality by standard folk, that is they aren't relegated to "delusions" as you defined them.

If you ask the next 100 people who walk down the street "does Germany exist, is Germany real?" Just about all will answer in the affirmative. Even though nations and corporations exist inter-subjectively.

As to the beliefs of theists, you're right they all believe their god is the ONE, TRUE god. It's been that way for millenia, through more than 2500 gods. That's the thing with gods, they have a time of rising, then declining popularity. When the last believer stops believing in a god, that god no longer exists. Identical to when the last quorum of people believes the USSR or Enron exist, they cease to exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, despite your contrary opinion, many intersubjective entities are considered to be "real" and to exist in reality by standard folk, that is they aren't relegated to "delusions" as you defined them.

It's not about opinion, Lucky: it's about definitions.

Unfortunately for us, English has one word for "exists," where the situation really requires two concepts. There are things which exist in reality, and things that exist as fictions. Those are different uses of the word exists; and I suggest that we fix the confusion by distinguishing them this way:

• ExistsR = "exists in reality," and "exists factually," and "exists regardless of belief." (Things that fit into this category would be Germany, at present, rocks, hydrodynamics, the Eiffel Tower, flawed circles, and you.)

• ExistsM = "exists as myth," or "exists as a fiction," or "exists as a concept in the minds of people." (Things that fit into this category would be Cinderella, corporate entities, Socialism, Enron, the perfect circle, and the integrity of politicians.)

The question then becomes, which of the two is intended by Atheism?

You say it might be existsM, or "intersubjectively" rather than "objectively." But if you ask an Atheist, what he or she means by "God does not exist," is he or she going to be happy with that?

I'm going to suggest no, for two obvious reasons. One is that it's flatly and obviously untrue: anybody can simply observe that religious figures and gods of various kinds existM "intersubjectively" or "as fictions believed by some." But secondly, I don't think that's at all the claim Atheism wants to make. (Let the Atheists correct me, if I'm wrong; but I think this is one point on which they're bound to agree with me.) It wants to say, "God does not existR." Atheism aims to convey that no God or gods existR, and that we are better off to believe they do not persist beyond our belief systems, and that they are not ultimately real.

As to the beliefs of theists, you're right they all believe their god is the ONE, TRUE god.

Right. They mean existR.

That's the thing with gods, they have a time of rising, then declining popularity. When the last believer stops believing in a god, that god no longer exists. Identical to when the last quorum of people believes the USSR or Enron exist, they cease to exist.

That's an existM claim, and has two problems. One is that it's verifiably untrue that belief in God is declining at all. People today are more likely to believe in a God or gods than ever...everywhere outside of the affluent West, particularly Europe. So we must not mistakenly take our own observations about our own society as indicative of the whole world; it just isn't.

But more importantly, the belief of people is irrelevant to an existR claim, which, as we have seen, is what both Atheists and the religious want to make. Nobody's very interested in existM claims about God, since it's apparent that He always existsM in that sense. It's not even worth debating. What is worth debating, as everybody knows, is whether or not God existsR, exists in reality.