Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

All Atheism is simply the claim, "There is no God." Absent that claim, one isn't even an Atheist in any literal sense; and Atheists themselves routinely point out that Atheism does not commit them to more.

And if one drills deeper into the question, we find that the main killing by atheists was perpetrated by communists.

Yes, that's true. Or Socialists, at the very least, including the National Socialists. But that's kind of predictable. Atheism, since it is a pretty minimal belief system, is incapable of doing a lot of things that get filled in by some ideology, like Fascism, Nationalism, Globalism, Humanism, Communism, the Gaia hypothesis, etc., because absent such an addition Atheism offers nothing that can orient a society or even an individual in a moral way, or toward a particular purpose or goal. It's mere negativity. So it always invites supplementation by some ideology; and historically, that's overwhelmingly proved to be Communism.

If one gets to cherry pick the theists, the atheists and agnostics should be able to also.

Agnostics, yes: they can come in a wide range. Atheists, no: since they profess they have but one claim.

To end up in either category you generally have one claim,

No, that's not the case.

You'll find that agnostics range all the way from, "I don't know, but I don't believe there is likely to be a God," to "I don't know for sure, but I've always hoped there will turn out to be one." That's quite a range -- between the nearly-Atheist and the nearly-Theistic. And some think they have evidence for their choice of position, and some claim to have less or none.

Agnosticism, like Atheism, can become irrational, and add, "...and it's not possible to know," or "...and you can't know either," but it doesn't have to add those claims: and when it does, of course, it is exceeding its ability to know. But as a plain confession of some measure of ignorance on the question, agnosticism is quite broad.

By contrast, Atheism's only one thing: "No Gods." Everything beyond that has to be added from some ideology, but isn't analytic to Atheism itself.

If you get to eliminate all sorts of Christians from the category Christian,

I don't. The Bible does.

Sorry: I admit it was an indelicate way to make the point, and I didn't intend by it to point out more than that your description of the history was wrong on this occasion. I should have put it better. My apologies.

Thank you. As it turns out it wasn't wrong, but I could have been clearer.

Well, culpa mea, as the saying goes: "my fault." Thanks for being generous of spirit about it.

[Harbal]

I've only ever voted twice, and the last time was over 40 years ago. I voted Conservative both times. Had voting been compulsory here, I would have voted for both major parties at various times, and maybe even one of the others, but not with any enthusiasm.

Well, it sounds as if you and I at least share an antipathy to politicians. So that's something. Maybe we're both just not really political people.

(I'm dying to ask if you voted for Maggie T. )

Yes, both times.

[Dontaskme]

By contrast, Atheism's only one thing: "No Gods."

There is no such thing as a ''No God or Gods''.

Why, because by just claiming there is 'No God' is simultaneously claiming there is a God to not be a God.
So the obviously known concept that is 'God' is simply impossible to be negated from the knowers vocabulary.

What these conceptual labels are, and the 'knower' of them, and where they come from, absolutely is unknown, without making this unknowing known, albeit conceptually.

Knowledge is made of concepts.

And notice, a concept is just an abstract idea....So IC, what exactly is an idea?

Have you any idea what is an idea?
Why, of course you have, haven't you? the unknown / known concept tells and informs you what it is.



By contrast...unknown/known.

[LuckyR]

No, that's not correct. There have been many cases throughout human history when the consensus -- even of all the people on earth -- was plain wrong. At one time, everybody believed the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by curses. It didn't make them right.

Huh? We're talking about moral codes not microbiology (which was itself impossible before the microscope).

Nice try at obfuscation though.

Not obfuscation. Illustration.

All I'm saying is that there is no automatic connection between how many people believe in a thing and how true it is. So no, we do not need to expect "there would be a consensus with a few outliers." There might well be a few who get it right and a lot who get it wrong.

That's often been the case, historically speaking.

Okay, if you remove statistics from the techniques to find the objectively superior set of moral codes, how do you go about determining it?

[Dontaskme]

By contrast, Atheism's only one thing: "No Gods." Everything beyond that has to be added from some ideology, but isn't analytic to Atheism itself.

So according to a very unsensible person, everything beyond the No God theory has to be added from some ideology, another theory.

What is an idea IC? have you any idea?

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, if you remove statistics from the techniques to find the objectively superior set of moral codes, how do you go about determining it?

"Remove"? I know of no way of using "statistics" to find any "moral codes" in the first place, whether "superior" or not. So there's nothing to "remove" there: "statistics" are already irrelevant. You'd have to explain to me how such a thing is even proposed to be done.

Maybe you can. I'm interested, if you can make that case.

But as to how morality is determined, it would have to be by divine revelation, in one form or another. There's no other way it could be, because tno human being is privileged, in that regard; none of us can show that he/she is an authoritative and certain source on such questions. And the mere statistical showing that some group believes X does not go even one step toward showing that X is genuinely moral. Groups have believed all sorts of things, many of them not conventionally moral. And that's pretty easy to show.

[LuckyR]

Okay, if you remove statistics from the techniques to find the objectively superior set of moral codes, how do you go about determining it?

"Remove"? I know of no way of using "statistics" to find any "moral codes" in the first place, whether "superior" or not. So there's nothing to "remove" there: "statistics" are already irrelevant. You'd have to explain to me how such a thing is even proposed to be done.

Maybe you can. I'm interested, if you can make that case.

But as to how morality is determined, it would have to be by divine revelation, in one form or another. There's no other way it could be, because tno human being is privileged, in that regard; none of us can show that he/she is an authoritative and certain source on such questions. And the mere statistical showing that some group believes X does not go even one step toward showing that X is genuinely moral. Groups have believed all sorts of things, many of them not conventionally moral. And that's pretty easy to show.

Well, what you're saying would make sense, if... humans weren't the creators of scriptures and religious dogma. Hence why the only objective measure of an inherantly subjective entity would be statistical analysis of said subjective entity.

Personally, I agree with you that statistics is wholey inadequate to provide guidance here, since again we're talking about a subjective entity.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, if you remove statistics from the techniques to find the objectively superior set of moral codes, how do you go about determining it?

"Remove"? I know of no way of using "statistics" to find any "moral codes" in the first place, whether "superior" or not. So there's nothing to "remove" there: "statistics" are already irrelevant. You'd have to explain to me how such a thing is even proposed to be done.

Maybe you can. I'm interested, if you can make that case.

But as to how morality is determined, it would have to be by divine revelation, in one form or another. There's no other way it could be, because tno human being is privileged, in that regard; none of us can show that he/she is an authoritative and certain source on such questions. And the mere statistical showing that some group believes X does not go even one step toward showing that X is genuinely moral. Groups have believed all sorts of things, many of them not conventionally moral. And that's pretty easy to show.

Well, what you're saying would make sense, if... humans weren't the creators of scriptures and religious dogma.

It makes sense anyway: because even if it were true that ALL Scriptures are just human in origin, that would only mean that there was absolutely no authority to morality...and BOTH religious and secular "moralizing" were fraudulent. That objection won't solve the problem; it will only make it universal.

However, if there's some revelation that is not like the others, and is actually genuine, then that objection simply falls flat. One cannot dismiss divine revelation by mere personal fiat...especially since one is going to be held accountable to it regardless of one's protests.

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice. So there's something about the relationship between Atheism as a worldview and morality that even Atheists are not actually believing.

[Harbal]

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice.

Subjective taste is real to the one who is tasting, and it is quite effective in attracting us towards some things and avoiding others.

[LuckyR]

"Remove"? I know of no way of using "statistics" to find any "moral codes" in the first place, whether "superior" or not. So there's nothing to "remove" there: "statistics" are already irrelevant. You'd have to explain to me how such a thing is even proposed to be done.

Maybe you can. I'm interested, if you can make that case.

But as to how morality is determined, it would have to be by divine revelation, in one form or another. There's no other way it could be, because tno human being is privileged, in that regard; none of us can show that he/she is an authoritative and certain source on such questions. And the mere statistical showing that some group believes X does not go even one step toward showing that X is genuinely moral. Groups have believed all sorts of things, many of them not conventionally moral. And that's pretty easy to show.

Well, what you're saying would make sense, if... humans weren't the creators of scriptures and religious dogma.

It makes sense anyway: because even if it were true that ALL Scriptures are just human in origin, that would only mean that there was absolutely no authority to morality...and BOTH religious and secular "moralizing" were fraudulent. That objection won't solve the problem; it will only make it universal.

However, if there's some revelation that is not like the others, and is actually genuine, then that objection simply falls flat. One cannot dismiss divine revelation by mere personal fiat...especially since one is going to be held accountable to it regardless of one's protests.

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice. So there's something about the relationship between Atheism as a worldview and morality that even Atheists are not actually believing.

Well, personal morality definitely exists, since that's the definition of morality. Universal, objective morality is what's in (serious) question.

[LuckyR]

BTW, even if one were to stipulate the ridiculous and say that a particular god came up with the objectively optimal moral code, two things: which of the 2500 gods is the correct one? Also, let's say the Christian god made the objectively optimal moral code, how would an intellectually honest observer reconcile the myriad different (many extremely different) moral codes purported to be "Christian morals"?

[Immanuel Can]

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice.

Subjective taste is real to the one who is tasting, and it is quite effective in attracting us towards some things and avoiding others.

Sure, it has some possibility of making individuals act: but it only attracts the person experiencing it, and gives no reason at all for anybody else.

That's why morality can never be a matter of mere taste. It cannot arbitrate a relationship between people. Taste is private. Morals are social or universal, or at least in-common with others.

[Immanuel Can]

...which of the 2500 gods is the correct one?

Only the one that actually exists, of course. There's no virtue in following imaginary or fake gods.

Also, let's say the Christian god made the objectively optimal moral code, how would an intellectually honest observer reconcile the myriad different (many extremely different) moral codes purported to be "Christian morals"?

Well, if we use divine revelation as the basis, then any codes which fall short of that are less good than any that conform to it. So, it's really not very hard.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, what you're saying would make sense, if... humans weren't the creators of scriptures and religious dogma.

It makes sense anyway: because even if it were true that ALL Scriptures are just human in origin, that would only mean that there was absolutely no authority to morality...and BOTH religious and secular "moralizing" were fraudulent. That objection won't solve the problem; it will only make it universal.

However, if there's some revelation that is not like the others, and is actually genuine, then that objection simply falls flat. One cannot dismiss divine revelation by mere personal fiat...especially since one is going to be held accountable to it regardless of one's protests.

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice. So there's something about the relationship between Atheism as a worldview and morality that even Atheists are not actually believing.

Well, personal morality definitely exists, since that's the definition of morality.

Well, morality is "personal" only in the sense that every "person" needs some. But it's not "personal" in the sense of being "private to a person."

As I was saying to Harbal, morality has to govern relationships. That's why it can never be "personal," even if a person has to have some.

[Harbal]

Interestingly, even most Atheists keep believing and acting as if morality is real, despite their claim that it's only a matter of subjective taste or collective prejudice.

Subjective taste is real to the one who is tasting, and it is quite effective in attracting us towards some things and avoiding others.

Sure, it has some possibility of making individuals act: but it only attracts the person experiencing it, and gives no reason at all for anybody else.

That's why morality can never be a matter of mere taste. It cannot arbitrate a relationship between people. Taste is private. Morals are social or universal, or at least in-common with others.

We can argue about the value of that kind of morality, but it's the kind most people practice. And I'm sure some do think that their moral opinions are a reference to objective truths, such as stealing really is wrong, but most won't think it because of God, they will see it as something that is just self evident.