What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

Language does and should change. But you have to understand that it can change in more than one way and that not every kind of change is good. Why change the meaning of existing words if you can introduce new words? What's the point of that? Why do you think that scientists should be in the business of changing the meaning of existing words? What does that achieve? That sort of thing can easily mislead everyone including scientists themselves.

Many changes are good, not all of them. New words are sometimes a good idea, sometimes not. For example let's consider how much our understanding of "stars" has changed since caveman times. I don't think we should have come up with new words for them at every step.

Words can, and they often do, have more than one meaning. That does not mean there are better and worse meanings. A word does not have to have a single meaning.

But the more important thing is that definitions aren't propositions. In other words, a definition is NOT a description of a portion of our existence. When you define a word, what you do is you attach to it certain concept. What you do is you decide what the word will mean when you use it. That's an entirely arbitrary thing, guided only by use value / convenience. You can attach any concept to any word. You don't have to use the word "unicorn" to mean "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead". You can use it to mean "a dog with four legs". There are no true and false definitions.

When we talk about value, we're all pretty much talking about a property of an object that denotes how useful that object is to someone.

And sure, you can use that word any other way you like. For example, you can use it to mean the same thing as the word "unicorn". But in that case, you'd be talking about a different thing, one that isn't relevant to this thread.

I can't make much sense of this. Many of our words are simply names for parts of existence. Like horse and horn. They are not arbitrary in that sense.

'Unicorn' takes two such simple concrete words and combines them in an abstract way. That is indeed done arbitrarily.

[Immanuel Can]

... many of the subsequent variations of Protestantism were no less authoritarian and prescriptive. You didn't question the Church, because that was the same as questioning God.

Only those that tried to retain elements of the Catholic practices. The Lutherans would be a good example. But that would have galled Luther, actually, who was pilloried by the Catholics precisely for the "sin," as they said, "of making every man his own interpreter" of Scripture. He was also put under the cosh for undermining the authority of Popes and councils, in order to affirm the right of all men to their consciences. That's a far cry from the kind of thing you're talking about...and Luther's more careful successors, such as the so-called "Anabaptists" or the Methodists and Quakers that soon appeared were even more committed to personal freedom and conscience. And that's the better tradition of Christianity -- not obedience to some clerical authority, but honest obedience to conscience in relation to Scripture.

As Luther himself said at his public trial, standing before those very clerical authorities he was defyingl:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

That's from his actual defense in the transcript we still have of the famous Diet of Worms of 1521 (pronounced, "Dee-it of Vorms," apparently. I've always thought that a particularly unfortunate name for a convocation of Catholic inquisitors, but perhaps an appropriate one, given what the Catholic authorities were likely to do with those found guilty by the inquisitors. )

Oh, everybody considers their morality to be "the objective truth." And that's nowhere more evident than among subjectivists, as you can see here. They are at great pains to convince everybody else of subjectivism, and it has great urgency for them.

No more so than the pains they are at to convince everybody else of their philosophical views on any other subject they may be involved in discussing. You, yourself, also go to great pains to convince everybody of moral objectivism, and with no less urgency, not to mention what quite often seems like desperation.

Quite right. It's a desperately urgent matter, I would say. And inherently, everybody has a common stake in the truth; but by definition, nobody has an inherent stake in somebody else's merely-subjective opinion.

And that, in itself, is a funny thing: you would think they would be happy for everybody to make his or her own "subjective" choice.

It is not at all a funny thing; it is exactly what many on this forum do regardless of the topic under discussion.

Well, clearly, not in this thread. The ire and objection of the subjectivists is everywhere here -- and there's really no good subjectivist accounting of it: for why should a subjectivist care what somebody else's subjective beliefs are, even if those beliefs are objectivist?

But it must surely be clear that the subjectivists want us to believe their view is true...and obligatory to all of us...and that there is something objectively morally defective in any refusal to accept that.

You see, they can't even keep faith with themselves. That, if nothing else, should tip us off that they're in the wrong in this matter.

To be a moral objectivist still requires the subjective decision about which moral "truths" to adhere to,

Well, we have to be careful and consistent with our use of the concept "subjective" here. Moral truths are not "subjective" in the sense of being untrue, or not relevant to everybody, or not objectively so; but they are "subjective" in that some "subject," some person, must choose whether or not to believe them.

But then, in that sense, gravity would also be "subjective." If I step off a cliff, I have subjectively chosen to do so; it will not mean I am less objectively dead.

I suspect that all too often they just happen to choose the "objective morals" that coincide with their own moral taste.

Yes, that's a real concern. I concur. Reference to objective morals can be arbitrary and wrong, and even can be used tyrannically. How else do we accout for the proliferation of moral views that claim to be objective?

Of course, as I pointed out, all of them really do, in fact: subjectivism included.

Why can't you accept that moral subjectivism is an honest view arrived at through rational thought,

Oh, that's easy.

Because it isn't rational. Subjectivism doesn't "add up," logically speaking. It's constantly self-contradicting. And it's that, not my "subjective" feeling about it that makes it genuinely impossible to rationalize.

"Right"? But a subjectivist cannot believe in objective rights. So his rights cannot be offended. Only his subjective feelings can be "hurt." But it cannot be an objective moral duty for us not to "hurt" a subjectivists feelings, can it?

I suppose it depends on the circumstances, and what you imagine to be imposing a duty on you.

But nothing can "impose a duty" on me, if that "duty" is merely subjective. Subjectivists insist that I can only impose a "duty" on myself...but really (and here is another of the internal self-contradictions of moral subjectism) not even that: for how can I "owe myself" anything, especially as my whims change and shift?

[Harbal]

No more so than the pains they are at to convince everybody else of their philosophical views on any other subject they may be involved in discussing. You, yourself, also go to great pains to convince everybody of moral objectivism, and with no less urgency, not to mention what quite often seems like desperation.

Quite right. It's a desperately urgent matter, I would say. And inherently, everybody has a common stake in the truth; but by definition, nobody has an inherent stake in somebody else's merely-subjective opinion.

But this is a place where people argue about philosophical points, we are not here to tell others what is in their best interests. I have argued with you about the subjectivity of morality, but not because I care whether you change your own views. I have done it because arguing against differing opinions is why we come here, or at least it should be. This is a forum, but you are treating it like a pulpit.

It is not at all a funny thing; it is exactly what many on this forum do regardless of the topic under discussion.

Well, clearly, not in this thread. The ire and objection of the subjectivists is everywhere here -- and there's really no good subjectivist accounting of it: for why should a subjectivist care what somebody else's subjective beliefs are, even if those beliefs are objectivist?

He doesn't care what your beliefs are, he just cares about trying to win an argument.

But it must surely be clear that the subjectivists want us to believe their view is true...and obligatory to all of us...and that there is something objectively morally defective in any refusal to accept that.

No, not morally defective, but logically defective. The people you are arguing with are attempting to demonstrate their rational superiority, not their moral supremacy.

To be a moral objectivist still requires the subjective decision about which moral "truths" to adhere to,

Well, we have to be careful and consistent with our use of the concept "subjective" here. Moral truths are not "subjective" in the sense of being untrue, or not relevant to everybody, or not objectively so; but they are "subjective" in that some "subject," some person, must choose whether or not to believe them.

But then, in that sense, gravity would also be "subjective." If I step off a cliff, I have subjectively chosen to do so; it will not mean I am less objectively dead.

I may well regret a moral decision, but there is no force of nature to punish me for it. If I decide gravity does not apply to me, I will very soon become aware of my error of judgement, and I will need no one to explain the consequences to me during my descent. I think your analogy actually undermines your argument.

Why can't you accept that moral subjectivism is an honest view arrived at through rational thought,

Oh, that's easy.

Because it isn't rational. Subjectivism doesn't "add up," logically speaking. It's constantly self-contradicting. And it's that, not my "subjective" feeling about it that makes it genuinely impossible to rationalize.

You know that is not true. There are people more intelligent than either of us who you would describe as moral subjectivists, so you cannot plausibly dismiss the position as being irrational. And it isn't as if you are coming from a place of rationality; everything you say is based on faith in something that can't be demonstrated or proven.

But nothing can "impose a duty" on me, if that "duty" is merely subjective. Subjectivists insist that I can only impose a "duty" on myself...but really (and here is another of the internal self-contradictions of moral subjectism) not even that: for how can I "owe myself" anything, especially as my whims change and shift?

I can only speak for myself, but when I occasionally send a cheque to the Salvation Army, or just treat shop assistants with politeness and respect, I don't do it because I think it is my duty, I do it because I want to do it. Not because I should do it, or have to do it, but solely because I want to. I very much doubt that I am the only person who incorporates moral standards into his behaviour in the absence of any external pressure to do so.

[Immanuel Can]

No more so than the pains they are at to convince everybody else of their philosophical views on any other subject they may be involved in discussing. You, yourself, also go to great pains to convince everybody of moral objectivism, and with no less urgency, not to mention what quite often seems like desperation.

Quite right. It's a desperately urgent matter, I would say. And inherently, everybody has a common stake in the truth; but by definition, nobody has an inherent stake in somebody else's merely-subjective opinion.

But this is a place where people argue about philosophical points, we are not here to tell others what is in their best interests.

Actually, we're here to do all kinds of things. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." And wisdom can be had about pratically anything.

This is a forum, but you are treating it like a pulpit.

I don't think I am. A pulpit is a unidirectional thing. This is a conversation, manifestly. And I've stopped nobody from holding an opinion, no matter how strongly -- or even irrationally -- they may hold it.

But neither do I owe them my agreement, or my polite silence when they say something that's irrational. The point of philosophy is to have the conversation. And it can always be agreeable, even when people disagree passionately.

It is not at all a funny thing; it is exactly what many on this forum do regardless of the topic under discussion.

Well, clearly, not in this thread. The ire and objection of the subjectivists is everywhere here -- and there's really no good subjectivist accounting of it: for why should a subjectivist care what somebody else's subjective beliefs are, even if those beliefs are objectivist?

He doesn't care what your beliefs are, he just cares about trying to win an argument.

Yes, that happens a lot, alas. And it invariably renders the conversation not-worth-having. For the minute a person decides she loves winning more than truth, there's no more to say.

But it must surely be clear that the subjectivists want us to believe their view is true...and obligatory to all of us...and that there is something objectively morally defective in any refusal to accept that.

No, not morally defective, but logically defective.

And yet, there's no logic that supports that claim. So that's not right. It has to be something else.

To be a moral objectivist still requires the subjective decision about which moral "truths" to adhere to,

Well, we have to be careful and consistent with our use of the concept "subjective" here. Moral truths are not "subjective" in the sense of being untrue, or not relevant to everybody, or not objectively so; but they are "subjective" in that some "subject," some person, must choose whether or not to believe them.

But then, in that sense, gravity would also be "subjective." If I step off a cliff, I have subjectively chosen to do so; it will not mean I am less objectively dead.

I may well regret a moral decision, but there is no force of nature to punish me for it.

No. But there are natural consequences now, and a God who judges with finality later. That should be enough to give us pause.

Why can't you accept that moral subjectivism is an honest view arrived at through rational thought,

Oh, that's easy.

Because it isn't rational. Subjectivism doesn't "add up," logically speaking. It's constantly self-contradicting. And it's that, not my "subjective" feeling about it that makes it genuinely impossible to rationalize.

You know that is not true.

I know it is. And it can be demonstrated.

There are people more intelligent than either of us who you would describe as moral subjectivists,

It's not a matter of pure intelligence. It's a matter of one's a priori assumptions. A person who follows rigorous logic, but whose first premise is false, will inevitably arrive at false conclusions, no matter how intelligent he is. In fact, the more rigorous his logic, the more certain that his conclusion will be wrong, if his first premise is false.

But yes, I can dismiss the position as irrational, because not a single subjectivist ever is totally subjectivist. Instead, they invariably rely on a mixture of relativistic and absolute claims, like "All morality is subjective, but you're objectively bad and wrong if you disagree with me."

The contradiction is evident even to the simplest intelligence.

...everything you say is based on faith in something that can't be demonstrated or proven.

You want the real truth? Everybody's beliefs begin with a faith claim, one that they cannot prove per se, but which they need to assume in order to generate knowledge. Michael Polanyi showed this. Thomas Kuhn showed it was true even of science itself. And it's now a commonplace among epistemologists: we all know now that a belief is always the beginning of knowledge.

Ironically, the Bible told us this long ago, for it says, "The reverence for the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." So once again, modern thinkers heat up their fevered brains, only to arrive at what the Bible handed to them long ago. They may not like the first premise, but they can no longer deny the necessity of some such premise.

But nothing can "impose a duty" on me, if that "duty" is merely subjective. Subjectivists insist that I can only impose a "duty" on myself...but really (and here is another of the internal self-contradictions of moral subjectism) not even that: for how can I "owe myself" anything, especially as my whims change and shift?

I can only speak for myself, but when I occasionally send a cheque to the Salvation Army, or just treat shop assistants with politeness and respect, I don't do it because I think it is my duty, I do it because I want to do it. Not because I should do it, or have to do it, but solely because I want to.

How very virtuous. At the same time, if you're only doing because you "want to," and think, for some unfathomable reason, that it's "just fun" to give away free stuff, then you're certainly not morally commendable for doing it; you're only pleasing your own whims. On the other hand, if you felt you owed a duty of respect to the poor, and you obeyed that sense of duty and gave away money or goods that cost you something, and espeically if you did it even while feeling like not doing it, you'd be morally commendable. You'd have been a man who put principle before self.

But of course, under subjectivism, there are no principles to which one could possibly respond anyway. You're not a "better" person for having been courteous with shop staff or having given stuff to "the Sally Annes". You're again only a person who is pleasing his own whims, according to subjectivism.

Now, personally, I don't think that's why you do it. But I have no reason to refuse your word on the subject; doubtless, you can say more about your own motives than I can. But in charity, I suspect you're probably a better person than to be driven by nothing but what "feels good" to you at a given moment.

[Iwannaplato]

[

It's not even logically possible for the Source of all goodness, light and life to allow a choice about association with Him and with those values, without allowing the chooser to choose the opposite, as well.

God made people knowing what they are like and what some of them will choose and allowed the possibility of eternal damnation. That's, at best, a deity with a lack of creativity.

God is not irrational. He does not do the incoherent and the self-contradictory. If we will not, at the end of the day, choose God, we shall have to choose His opposite. As C.S. Lewis so appropriately put it:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done. ' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell."

You're finding excuse for someone who has serious problems. Just as people find excuses for mundane human despots. Note: I am not saying God is a despot, just that you're version is not taking responsibility for his actions or lacks power or creativity. And really, the CS Lewis quote doesn't explain, in any way, why God could only manage to create a universe where some people were going to end up suffering for an eternity. It takes a similar kind of mental gymnastics to explain why torture and repressive murder are necessary in fascist and communist states. At least there we are dealing with fallible humans, unable to think of other ways of creating a better society. But God....? Come on.

Well, we'd have to decide what "mainstream" implied, wouldn't we? If you mean, "Your understanding of Christianity is not the one the larger proportion of historically-professing 'Christians' talk about," then you're quite right. But if you mean, "Yours is the wrong version," well, that depends on what God says about that, doesn't it?

That was just me not assuming you believed in eternal damnation and checking to see if you did. If you do, that overlaps with many Christianities. If not, I assume you would have let me know.

Should we tell people what they are choosing? Or would that be an arbitrary use of power, a threat? I would say not. I would say it's simply a warning to people that they are making a very important choice, and one the natural consequences of which are significant, to say the least.

When we warn people about cigarrettes, we did not make the cigarrettes.

Human beings? Well, we did, of course.

Oh, come on. We did not make tobacco. We did not make it attractive and unhealthy. The people who are warning others to not smoke generally are not the manufactureres. Please don't play games.

But if you mean, "The warner did not personally work for Rothman's," you're probably right. Anybody working for Rothman's would tell the world that cigarettes were good.

Thank you yes. Though it goes deeper than that.

We did not make human nature such that we would desire them.

No. And God did not make human beings such that they would desire evil. Instead, He only made them free. But freedom and individuality have entailments; and one of those logical entailments is the ability to choose the morally right and the ability to choose the morally wrong.

He made us such that we desire to do things God doesn't want us to do. We're not tabula rasa when born. Very much like animals we have desires and passions. We're not computers choosing: we choose out of how we are made. He would have known that some people were going to choose wrong and that they would suffer for all eternity. Only a monster would let that happen.

We did not make the addictive tendencies in humans.

Nor did God, originally. But what we have made of ourselves is not what He made us to be. That's the point of what we call "salvation."

See above.

We did not decide that bodies would be vulnerable to the horrible side effects of the desires we gave those bodies.

But again, choices have natural consequences. If one is determined to move away from the Source of health and rightness, one can move in only one direction.

We are fallible humans trying to protect other fallible humans from the consequences of their choices.

Maybe that's our problem: we're less committed to freedom than God is.

[God]can't just shrug and say 'hey I'm just warning you.'

Well, if you know the Christian message, then you know He didn't. Rather, He was aware of the wretched choice human beings were making, just as He is aware of all things. And so He made a way out -- at great cost to Himself -- so that human beings could make a better choice, if they were willing.

An omnipotent being cannot suffer a great cost. I assume you mean Jesus and his sacrifice. But a deity, even incarnate, will never know the suffering of most humans, given what he knows. And Jesus, while having a bad end on earth, suffered much less than many trafficked children. You may not have meant the Jesus scenario, but I do get tired of this being presented as a great sacrifice. There are people out there who do not have Jesus' gifts, who are not also God, who are suffering in basements things much worse than Jesus ever did and much longer.

And some of them are suffering this not because of other humans. He couldn't manage to make a universe without that either.

Seems fair. It respects human autonomy, but provides a better solution. Short of removing all freedom, what could God have done?

In the end you will have your gut reaction and I will have mine. I think God could have managed to not have children born with painful diseases where they suffer for years. I think God could have managed, if he is omnipotent, to have not let babies be born in households with fathers who have already raped previous children. That's not about freedom.

He also could have given people freedom but then temperments and desires that fit with what God likes.

And then, to me it seems obvious that many things could have been better. And everything that explains this all away is based on the need for the king to be good. It's just too horrible for people to face that he could make errors or actually be a problem. I think there are some solutions that the major religions, including your version of Christianity, don't really want to look at. So the proponents, to maintain their belief, must find excuses and use mental gymnastics to excuse their God and say he had no better choice.

Abraham was ready to commit a sin. And a good God would have been disappointed in Abraham. That's a God who loves freedom.

The alternative is to let them stumble blindly on, possibly making a choice they have not fully thought through.

If that is the only possible alternative, this is a weak and uncreative deity.

No, I did not mean that. Sorry...I didn't make that clear. It's not an alternative for Him. It's an alternative for those of us humans who know there's a better way: we can remain silent, or we can point out to others that their current choices are disastrous in natural consequence. And which is best to do? It seems clear to me.

I find myself in the same position with you. What can I do but react to the repetition of old lies about God, where God is guilt instead of love.

[iambiguous]

From my frame of mind your frame of mind about objective morality revolves around the assumption that the Christian God does exist. That He provides us with moral Commandments in the Bible. That we had best abide by them. Why? Because if we don't we risk eternal damnation on Judgment Day. And yet even if one does abide by them that's not enough if one does not also accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior.

In turn, with you, in my view, it's not enough to be a Christian if one is not a "true Christian". And a true Christian is ever and always what you say it is. So, apparently, even the souls of other Christians are at risk -- Catholics? -- if they don't come around to your very own rooted existentially in dasein personal Christianity.

Now, others here go back and forth arguing with you about any number of things relating to God, religion and morality. But how does that change the bottom line? That, in the end, they either grasp what you grasped in those 17 videos about the Christian God, accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, worship and adore Him or they are fucked.

Well, their souls are anyway.

And noting things like this...

Not even necessarily then...because maybe one's particular society approves slavery.

So sometimes, we think there are no consequences. But there are still natural consequences. Because one is enslaving people, one's soul becomes hard and inhuman toward a segment of the human race, and probably toward suffering generally. Because one has no regard for the fact that all people are made in the image of God, one becomes contemptuous of human rights generally. And because one is going to face judgment before God, one is inevitably going to answer to the very last point for all that one has done.

The Christian view is that justice is inescapable, because whatever one believes, there will be full accountability in eternity, under the eye of the all-seeing God, who never misses a particle of what one thinks or does. Justice will be served; and it can be served on your personally, or on the One who has taken your judgment on your behalf, and offers you forgiveness, restoration to right relationship with God, and a better way forward, Jesus Christ.

Justice is a natural consequence. Believe it or not.

...changes none of that. Even among Christians themselves there are many, many conflicting assessments of what constitutes social, political and economic justice: https://youtu.be/6tYxnt3gCyI?si=-ZQR4XEcjty0iGe_

Same regarding what is said to be "natural".

Hense the need on your part to demand of them that they be "true Christians" and share your own political prejudices regarding "the righteous thing to do".

No "middle ground" for you, right?

Did not any number of Christians rationalize slavery by actually quoting from the Christian Bible itself:

"The Holiness code of Leviticus explicitly allows participation in the slave trade, with non-Israelite residents who had been sold into slavery being regarded as a type of property that could be inherited." wiki

Here's how the faithful rationalize it:

"The Purpose of Slavery

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality." compelling truth site

If what you were saying were right, then all Christians would own slaves. But it was the Christian insight that all men are made in the image of God that actually freed the slaves. It was William Wilberforce who devoted his life to eliminating slavery from the British Empire...and he was a devout Christian. It was in the name of God that the slaves were freed in the US, as well...though around the rest of the world, they were not freed, and in many places, are still not freed.

Right, like those Christians who rationalized slavery down through the ages don't have their own rendition of history.

Here's your own rationalization...

If you look in Scripture, you'll find the radical idea that even people who are trapped in slavery and cannot get their freedom are full citizens of the Kingdom of God, and can still serve God. That's a far cry from the idea that human beings can be chattels, and that they are less than anybody else. And all that is from the Christian tradition.

No doubt you can probably find some perverse souls who have, historically, tried to rationalize slavery from the Bible. But then, what will the evil NOT abuse for their own propagandistic purposes? They've certainly abused economics, politics, and even science that way. Why would you suppose that mendacious men would stop short of trying to manipulate Scripture to their selfish purposes, as well?

And, of course, your points here, being those of a true Christian, are not in the least used for propagandistic purposes? It's the Gospel truth.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. Whatever it takes to sustain the comfort and the consolation of actually believing it. In my view, Christianity is not a spiritual component of your life but a manifestation of the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

I guess it depends on how much one understands of human nature.

And how one comes to understand that is rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein...in the uniquely personal life that one lives. That is precisely why there are so many different One True Paths to God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

What, you don't think that they are just as concerned about saving your soul? Though, for some, viewing you as an "infidel", they would rather see you...crucified?

All religions and ideologies claim to be "the most right." Even those that self-present as universalist and tolerant of all other ideologies will actually admit that you're "better" for being with them on that then for having an exclusive view: so ironically, the universalists are just as exclusive as the most exclusive religions: all of them insist their way is true.

But what of that? It does not argue for any special conclusion. All it gives us reason to realize is that a lot of people are wrong. And that would be apparent, even if we didn't know which religion or creed were true. The fact that they conflict and contradict makes it inevitable.

What of that?!! With objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line, all that really matters [to you] is that they are all wrong because only you are right? And when they note exactly the same thing regarding you?

Sure, you are able to just shrug that off too. And, again, if that's what it takes to sustain your comfort and consolation [all the way to the grave] you win, I lose.

Meaning, of course, that far, far more important than listening to what the faithful tell you about their God, is the extent to which they can demonstrate that it is their own God [and only their own God] that brings about consequences.

What would you consider a satisfactory "demonstration" of that?

Well, you can start by responding in depth to the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=40750

In this case, the consequences for henry and I and Harbel and others here will be to endure the terrible agony of roasting in Hell for all of eternity if we don't "grow up" and accept your own God.

Well, I was only saying that a mature view of ethics requires us to grow up, accept free will as a fact, and accept our responsibility for our own choices. And with that, they might well fully agree. I suspect Henry would, for sure: he's very Classical Liberal, almost Libertarian-like, in many of his views. And they're just fine with the suggestion that the individual must have, make and be responsible for his choices.

Okay, those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and those who are not "true Christians" accept that responsibility. But their souls are still no less damned. Or your soul if one of the other denominations above is the One True Path to immortality and salvation and you refuse to make the most responsible choice and join them.

Then [of course] this part:

The Bible makes the claim that all men are responsible for the choice of what they do with God as well as with ethics/morals. And we all have to be responsible for that choice, too. But for somebody who's prepared to take that responsibility, it need not be a threatening thing at all; it can be a welcome opportunity, and should be. That's how the Bible presents it. It says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" , and "See, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation." The present project God has is not condemnation but salvation. But man will use his free will however he will use his free will; and no choice is free from consequences. If a man simply refuses to be saved, what is to be done with him? He must be lost, and lost by his own free will.

The Bible says...

And the Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God. And that is true because it says so in the Bible.

[Harbal]

Quite right. It's a desperately urgent matter, I would say. And inherently, everybody has a common stake in the truth; but by definition, nobody has an inherent stake in somebody else's merely-subjective opinion.

But this is a place where people argue about philosophical points, we are not here to tell others what is in their best interests.

Actually, we're here to do all kinds of things. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." And wisdom can be had about pratically anything.

Well there's nothing to stop you from taking it upon yourself to set yourself up as a source of wisdom concerning what principles to live ones life by, but most of us do not come here for that, and some are bound to react quite negatively to it. But perhaps you enjoy provoking hostility, and it certainly seems like it at times, but I am by no means in any position to condemn you for that.

He doesn't care what your beliefs are, he just cares about trying to win an argument.

Yes, that happens a lot, alas. And it invariably renders the conversation not-worth-having. For the minute a person decides she loves winning more than truth, there's no more to say.

No response needed for that, I'm sure the obvious one will immediately occur to all who read it.

I may well regret a moral decision, but there is no force of nature to punish me for it.

No. But there are natural consequences now, and a God who judges with finality later. That should be enough to give us pause.

Why should the fact that you believe in God be taken into account by those who don't believe?

But yes, I can dismiss the position as irrational, because not a single subjectivist ever is totally subjectivist. Instead, they invariably rely on a mixture of relativistic and absolute claims, like "All morality is subjective, but you're objectively bad and wrong if you disagree with me."

But they are claims about two different things: One is a claim about morality, and the other is a claim about your conclusion. Besides, I don't believe anyone has ever said that to you. Can you provide a quote?

Ironically, the Bible told us...

Put the damn thing away.

I can only speak for myself, but when I occasionally send a cheque to the Salvation Army, or just treat shop assistants with politeness and respect, I don't do it because I think it is my duty, I do it because I want to do it. Not because I should do it, or have to do it, but solely because I want to.

How very virtuous. At the same time, if you're only doing because you "want to," and think, for some unfathomable reason, that it's "just fun" to give away free stuff, then you're certainly not morally commendable for doing it; you're only pleasing your own whims. On the other hand, if you felt you owed a duty of respect to the poor, and you obeyed that sense of duty and gave away money or goods that cost you something, and espeically if you did it even while feeling like not doing it, you'd be morally commendable. You'd have been a man who put principle before self.

You are missing my point. I am under no illusion that my good deeds are anything more than an exercise in feeling good about myself, but that is the nature of human beings, and morality is just a mundane part of human nature.

But of course, under subjectivism, there are no principles to which one could possibly respond anyway. You're not a "better" person for having been courteous with shop staff or having given stuff to "the Sally Annes". You're again only a person who is pleasing his own whims, according to subjectivism.

Have I ever said otherwise? I am giving my account of what I think morality is, not what you think it should be.

Now, personally, I don't think that's why you do it. But I have no reason to refuse your word on the subject; doubtless, you can say more about your own motives than I can. But in charity, I suspect you're probably a better person than to be driven by nothing but what "feels good" to you at a given moment.

No, I don't believe I am a better person than that.

[iambiguous]

I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact.

You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy.

So, the Deist God designed, created [and maybe sustains] the whole of reality, so He gets to decide what is objectively moral or immoral? Just as He gets to decide what every person must -- rationally? logically? -- grasp about life, liberty, and property? And henry is just passing that on to us.

And, in so doing, of his own free will, he chooses to defy IC and his Christian God. And thus, of his own free will, if defying Christianity is his choice, and Christianity is the real deal, he will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Ain't that right, IC?

Of course, the tricky part with Deism is that, with no Scripture -- and no Judgment Day? -- the faithful can't seem to pin down whether or not being objectively moral on this side of the grave results in immortality and salvation...

"For example, some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not." PBS.

So, as with IC and Christianity, I suppose it comes down to whether henry believes there are true Deists and false Deists.

And, if so, the "for all practical purposes" consequences of that.

[Immanuel Can]

[

It's not even logically possible for the Source of all goodness, light and life to allow a choice about association with Him and with those values, without allowing the chooser to choose the opposite, as well.

God made people knowing what they are like and what some of them will choose and allowed the possibility of eternal damnation.

Of course. To allow somebody to choose is to allow them to choose. But God's desire is that nobody should make the wrong choice.

...the CS Lewis quote doesn't explain, in any way, why God could only manage to create a universe where some people were going to end up suffering for an eternity.

That was not its purpose. But that's not too difficult to explain anyway. Like I said, if people have a choice, then they have a choice. And that implies that some will choose wrongly.

But it does not suggest God made them choose what they chose. If I foreknow that you will answer this message, that is not a case of me "making" you to do it, or of you not having a choice to do otherwise. Just so, God can foreknow what people will choose, without thereby becoming the explanation of why they choose it.

That was just me not assuming you believed in eternal damnation and checking to see if you did.

Well, I trust I've been clear. You could just ask, of course.

Should we tell people what they are choosing? Or would that be an arbitrary use of power, a threat? I would say not. I would say it's simply a warning to people that they are making a very important choice, and one the natural consequences of which are significant, to say the least.

When we warn people about cigarrettes, we did not make the cigarrettes.

Human beings? Well, we did, of course.

Oh, come on. We did not make tobacco. We did not make it attractive and unhealthy.

Tobacco may have many uses, or it may not have a legitimate one for humans at all. God does not decide for us what we will do with the creation he has made, and what we will not. In that, too, we have choice...even bad choice.

We did not make human nature such that we would desire them.

No. And God did not make human beings such that they would desire evil. Instead, He only made them free. But freedom and individuality have entailments; and one of those logical entailments is the ability to choose the morally right and the ability to choose the morally wrong.

He made us such that we desire to do things God doesn't want us to do. We're not tabula rasa when born.

Quite true.

Very much like animals we have desires and passions.

Don't go too far with that: we're LIKE animals. That doesn't imply that's all we are.

We certainly do have desires and passions. And since mankind is in a state of alienation from God, not all of the desires and passions we have are good. Christians say that we're born with a "fallen nature," meaning not that we are instantly evil (though it takes us remarkably little time to become that), but that we have the wrong kinds of impulses, and find it necessary to resist them. That's where morality comes in: human beings are creatures that do desire to do the wrong thing; morality reminds them that they are to follow the right thing, not their passions.

We're not computers choosing: we choose out of how we are made. He would have known that some people were going to choose wrong and that they would suffer for all eternity. Only a monster would let that happen.

Let's consider the alternative.

God could have made us incapable of bad choices. But then, we would also be incapable of good ones, or of any choices at all. He could have made us with no capability of volition different from His own; but then we would never have become persons or individuals...just automata. It is because we can choose God and the good, or reject God and the good, that we have the possibility of freely choosing the good, and freely choosing to love and know God.

Is that trade-off worth it? Many people would say it is. The cost of a reality with no individuality might well be too high. Not a few people have given up their lives for freedom -- even just for the future freedom of people they love, or for the good of their country. So it would seem that individuality, freedom, choice, personhood, are goods that actually can relativize the value of life itself. You may decide not; but I'm far from alone in seeing that they could be.

[God]can't just shrug and say 'hey I'm just warning you.'

Well, if you know the Christian message, then you know He didn't. Rather, He was aware of the wretched choice human beings were making, just as He is aware of all things. And so He made a way out -- at great cost to Himself -- so that human beings could make a better choice, if they were willing.

An omnipotent being cannot suffer a great cost. I assume you mean Jesus and his sacrifice.[/quote] Indeed I do.

But a deity, even incarnate, will never know the suffering of most humans, given what he knows.

Apparently, that's far from the case.

And Jesus, while having a bad end on earth, suffered much less than many trafficked children.

Do you know what it was that Jesus suffered? Do you understand what was involved in the crucifixion, beyond the mere physical suffering? Do you have some conception of what it is to know what perfect fellowship and unity with God the Father is, and then to have that taken away? Do you have a perception of what it means for the Holy One to be treated by God as if He were sin itself? For that is what the Bible tells us was involved, and no less.

And some of them are suffering this not because of other humans. He couldn't manage to make a universe without that either.

You're surprised that evil is so evil it takes victims? But it does. But there is no choice when there are no alternatives. And there are no alternatives to the good that are not horribly bad.

I think God could have managed to not have children born with painful diseases where they suffer for years. I think God could have managed, if he is omnipotent, to have not let babies be born in households with fathers who have already raped previous children. That's not about freedom.

Suffering is very, very bad. And evil takes victims. All the more reason to reject evil, and seek the good.

He also could have given people freedom but then temperments and desires that fit with what God likes.

And yet, if there was no time at all in which people had an alternative, then the one thing they could not do is choose relationship with Him. There would necessarily have to be a period of time in which they could choose some alternate course. That need not last forever, of course -- but how long should it be? Only God knows. What we do know is that there had to be such a period of time.

It's just too horrible for people to face that he could make errors or actually be a problem. I think there are some solutions that the major religions, including your version of Christianity, don't really want to look at.

Oh, there are many versions of "religion" that actually insist on it. Gnosticisms of all kinds are good examples of that. They believe that the creator of the world was not "God," per se, but an entity they often call "the Demiurge" who is actually (depending on the variety of "religion") either incompetent or malevolent. It's a way they can explain the existence of evil to themselves.

But it's too easy, too facile. Things are more complicated than that. Freedom has paradoxes, like the necessity of the choice of something alternative to good, that are too subtle for an ideology like Gnosticism.

Abraham was ready to commit a sin.

He committed a few, actually, and the Torah is not shy about saying so. Which one are you particularly disturbed by? Isaac? But he did not harm his son, and a substitute for the atonement was provided by God...all of which should remind us both of Something....

[Immanuel Can]

From my frame of mind your frame of mind about objective morality revolves around the assumption that the Christian God does exist.

Oh, absolutely.

That He provides us with moral Commandments in the Bible.

Well, He does, but that is far from the end of the story. Christianity is not a religion of obedience to commandments. It's a living relationship with God, in which obedience comes from joy and gratitude, not from mere obligation.

That we had best abide by them. Why? Because if we don't we risk eternal damnation on Judgment Day. And yet even if one does abide by them that's not enough if one does not also accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior.

In fact, the commandments are not relevant to salvation at all. Saving people was never their function; their function was to inform people of their current moral state, and to alert them to the need for God's salvation.

It's Jesus Christ who saves. As the Bible itself declares, "By the deeds of the Law no one will be justified; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin."

In turn, with you, in my view, it's not enough to be a Christian if one is not a "true Christian". And a true Christian is ever and always what you say it is.

Not quite. I make no pretensions to being the arbitor of that. It is the one who knows and loves God who is the true Christian; and as John tells us in his epistle, such a Christian will also keep God's commandments...but out of gratitude and love, not fear.

Did not any number of Christians rationalize slavery by actually quoting from the Christian Bible itself:

Did not some people also rationalize slavery by referring to science itself, particularly to Darwin and to the science of eugenics? Of course they did. But you see through their mendacity, don't you? You don't simply reject science, just because enslavers abused it, do you?

All religions and ideologies claim to be "the most right." Even those that self-present as universalist and tolerant of all other ideologies will actually admit that you're "better" for being with them on that then for having an exclusive view: so ironically, the universalists are just as exclusive as the most exclusive religions: all of them insist their way is true.

But what of that? It does not argue for any special conclusion. All it gives us reason to realize is that a lot of people are wrong. And that would be apparent, even if we didn't know which religion or creed were true. The fact that they conflict and contradict makes it inevitable.

What of that?!! With objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line, all that really matters [to you] is that they are all wrong because only you are right?

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that your claim that other people believe different things is irrelevant to deciding anything about the truth of their beliefs.

If you understand logic, you know something here for sure: namely, that radically contradictory belief systems cannot be simultaneously true. They can all be false, of course, or one can be right. But you can't tell, from the mere proliferation and cacophony of views, what situation obtains. And my argument is simply that there IS a right answer. And nothing in your observation makes it reasonable to suppose otherwise.

In this case, the consequences for henry and I and Harbel and others here will be to endure the terrible agony of roasting in Hell for all of eternity if we don't "grow up" and accept your own God.

Well, I was only saying that a mature view of ethics requires us to grow up, accept free will as a fact, and accept our responsibility for our own choices. And with that, they might well fully agree. I suspect Henry would, for sure: he's very Classical Liberal, almost Libertarian-like, in many of his views. And they're just fine with the suggestion that the individual must have, make and be responsible for his choices.

Okay, those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and those who are not "true Christians" accept that responsibility. But their souls are still no less damned. Or your soul if one of the other denominations above is the One True Path to immortality and salvation and you refuse to make the most responsible choice and join them.

I see nothing of that I would disagree with. If I'm right, they're wrong; if I'm right, they're wrong. It's all so utterly unsurprising, given basic logic.

Then [of course] this part:

The Bible makes the claim that all men are responsible for the choice of what they do with God as well as with ethics/morals. And we all have to be responsible for that choice, too. But for somebody who's prepared to take that responsibility, it need not be a threatening thing at all; it can be a welcome opportunity, and should be. That's how the Bible presents it. It says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" , and "See, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation." The present project God has is not condemnation but salvation. But man will use his free will however he will use his free will; and no choice is free from consequences. If a man simply refuses to be saved, what is to be done with him? He must be lost, and lost by his own free will.

The Bible says...

And the Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God. And that is true because it says so in the Bible.

I haven't made that argument, because it's circular, so I never would make it. I would simply say that if God has spoken, then we shall find it in one of the world's traditions, or not at all. If it's "not at all," then we're all doomed. But if God has spoken, then we must ask, "Where?" And the answer will come with a price: we shall have to invest ourselves in the truth of what we find, or more correctly, invest ourselves in the search for God before God will meet us. As the Bible says, "you shall find Me when you seek Me with all your heart."

You may not believe that. It will be nonetheless true.

[Immanuel Can]

But this is a place where people argue about philosophical points, we are not here to tell others what is in their best interests.

Actually, we're here to do all kinds of things. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." And wisdom can be had about pratically anything.

Well there's nothing to stop you from taking it upon yourself to set yourself up as a source of wisdom concerning what principles to live ones life by, but most of us do not come here for that,

Then most don't come here for philosophy. For philosophy is the love of wisdom...whether it appears in somebody else, in me, or in some other form.

But perhaps you enjoy provoking hostility, and it certainly seems like it at times, but I am by no means in any position to condemn you for that.

I don't, actually, aim at creating hostility. But I do expect it sometimes, and am not at all deterred by it. Philosophy is not a popularity poll, nor is wisdom defined by how many people are happy to receive it.

I may well regret a moral decision, but there is no force of nature to punish me for it.

No. But there are natural consequences now, and a God who judges with finality later. That should be enough to give us pause.

Why should the fact that you believe in God be taken into account by those who don't believe?

For exactly the same reason as the law of gravity should be taken into account by everybody, whether they know the specific law or not: because it's true, and because the consequences of error on that are significant.

But yes, I can dismiss the position as irrational, because not a single subjectivist ever is totally subjectivist. Instead, they invariably rely on a mixture of relativistic and absolute claims, like "All morality is subjective, but you're objectively bad and wrong if you disagree with me."

But they are claims about two different things: One is a claim about morality, and the other is a claim about your conclusion.

But one is a claim that subjectivism is true, and the other calls upon moral objectivism. Vive la contradiction!

I can only speak for myself, but when I occasionally send a cheque to the Salvation Army, or just treat shop assistants with politeness and respect, I don't do it because I think it is my duty, I do it because I want to do it. Not because I should do it, or have to do it, but solely because I want to.

How very virtuous. At the same time, if you're only doing because you "want to," and think, for some unfathomable reason, that it's "just fun" to give away free stuff, then you're certainly not morally commendable for doing it; you're only pleasing your own whims. On the other hand, if you felt you owed a duty of respect to the poor, and you obeyed that sense of duty and gave away money or goods that cost you something, and espeically if you did it even while feeling like not doing it, you'd be morally commendable. You'd have been a man who put principle before self.

You are missing my point. I am under no illusion that my good deeds are anything more than an exercise in feeling good about myself, but that is the nature of human beings, and morality is just a mundane part of human nature.

And yet, we don't call "the nature of human beings" morality. And with good reason: apes, dogs, fish and paramecia behave according to their own natures, and can do nothing else. But human beings, for some reason, have decided that some of their impulses, desires and projects should be arrested in the name of ethics.

That is, if an arbitrary, evolutionary decision was all it was...

But if it was that...merely arbitrary and evolutionary, what duty do I have to take it seriously at all? A subjectivist has to say, "You don't."

[Harbal]

Actually, we're here to do all kinds of things. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." And wisdom can be had about pratically anything.

Well there's nothing to stop you from taking it upon yourself to set yourself up as a source of wisdom concerning what principles to live ones life by, but most of us do not come here for that,

Then most don't come here for philosophy. For philosophy is the love of wisdom...whether it appears in somebody else, in me, or in some other form.

You certainly don't come here for philosophy. You are a missionary, not a philosopher.

I don't, actually, aim at creating hostility. But I do expect it sometimes, and am not at all deterred by it. Philosophy is not a popularity poll, nor is wisdom defined by how many people are happy to receive it.

And it's not as if you are in any danger of being eaten by cannibals on an internet forum.

Why should the fact that you believe in God be taken into account by those who don't believe?

For exactly the same reason as the law of gravity should be taken into account by everybody, whether they know the specific law or not: because it's true, and because the consequences of error on that are significant.

We don't need to know the laws governing gravity in order to experience it. Even if we were never told anything about gravity, we would still know it was there. We wouldn't need a book that could have been written by any Tom, Dick and Immanuel to tell us of its existence before we became aware of its presence.

And yet, we don't call "the nature of human beings" morality. And with good reason: apes, dogs, fish and paramecia behave according to their own natures, and can do nothing else. But human beings, for some reason, have decided that some of their impulses, desires and projects should be arrested in the name of ethics.

That is, if an arbitrary, evolutionary decision was all it was...

But if it was that...merely arbitrary and evolutionary, what duty do I have to take it seriously at all? A subjectivist has to say, "You don't."

You are the one who keeps speaking of duty; I don't think I have said we have a duty. To look at it another way; if we have an impulse to perform what we consider a moral deed, why should we not act upon it?

When people desire to have sex, with no intention of creating babies, they don't look for a logical reason for expending the necessary energy before they are motivated to go ahead.

[promethean75]

Is Harbal the most easy going and laid back philosopher at just PN or in the entire universe?

[henry quirk]

So, the Deist God designed, created [and maybe sustains] the whole of reality, so He gets to decide what is objectively moral or immoral?

Actually, I was talkin' about the Christian God (but it works for mine too).

Just as He gets to decide what every person must -- rationally? logically? -- grasp about life, liberty, and property?

Nope. As I as say: every man, any man, any where or when, intuits his life, liberty, and property are his. Even the slaver, the murderer, the rapist, the thief knows it.

Even you know it.

And henry is just passing that on to us.

Nah. I'm just pointin' out what everyone already knows.

And, in so doing, of his own free will, he chooses to defy IC and his Christian God. And thus, of his own free will, if defying Christianity is his choice, and Christianity is the real deal, he will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

28DE07A0-3BE0-412D-95DD-9E2EA7B1E652.png

Ain't that right, IC?

Of course, the tricky part with Deism is that, with no Scripture -- and no Judgment Day? -- the faithful can't seem to pin down whether or not being objectively moral on this side of the grave results in immortality and salvation...

Still worried about goin' to Hell? Real queer for an atheist to worry about such things.

"...some Deists..." PBS.

By Crom on His lonely mountain: you finally got one thing right.

So, as with IC and Christianity, I suppose it comes down to whether henry believes there are true Deists and false Deists.

I'm ecumenical.

And, if so, the "for all practical purposes" consequences of that.

You ought worry more about the practical applications in the here & now. God may allow your ass to sink to Hades (your choice if you do) but a shotgun-toting neanderthal just might be the one to send you on your way (if, in your nihilistic zeal, you get the idea you can piss on his natural rights).

[Immanuel Can]

Well there's nothing to stop you from taking it upon yourself to set yourself up as a source of wisdom concerning what principles to live ones life by, but most of us do not come here for that,

Then most don't come here for philosophy. For philosophy is the love of wisdom...whether it appears in somebody else, in me, or in some other form.

You certainly don't come here for philosophy. You are a missionary, not a philosopher.

Oh...well, where do you think Christians should go for philosophy? Or would you say that a person is only valuable as a philosopher if he or she is NOT a Christian? Or would you say that it's fine for him/her to be a Christian, so long as he/she doesn't really believe it, and doesn't use it to orient his/her philosophy?

I'm kind of intrigued to find out how you make sense of your position on that.

I don't, actually, aim at creating hostility. But I do expect it sometimes, and am not at all deterred by it. Philosophy is not a popularity poll, nor is wisdom defined by how many people are happy to receive it.

And it's not as if you are in any danger of being eaten by cannibals on an internet forum.

No, of course.

Why should the fact that you believe in God be taken into account by those who don't believe?

For exactly the same reason as the law of gravity should be taken into account by everybody, whether they know the specific law or not: because it's true, and because the consequences of error on that are significant.

We don't need to know the laws governing gravity in order to experience it. Even if we were never told anything about gravity, we would still know it was there. We wouldn't need a book that could have been written by any Tom, Dick and Immanuel to tell us of its existence before we became aware of its presence.

I'm quite certain the same is true of God. We all know He's there. Some people just prefer to spend their lives in futile shutting down of that awareness.

I don't think I have said we have a duty.

Well, that would be a sad and unethical way to look at life...to feel that one owed nobody anything, and had only one's own feelings as guide.

To look at it another way; if we have an impulse to perform what we consider a moral deed, why should we not act upon it?

Morality isn't really even needed for such a situation. If my impulses line up with a good deed, where does morality come into play in my cognitions? But it's when my impulses incline me one way, but duty / principle / rightness incline me to something opposite that we find out if I have any moral fibre or not.

There is a very good reason why we don't admire or criticize a lion for tearing apart a gazelle; it's just an animal acting on his impulses. He's doing what comes naturally. What talk of morality can be relevant? But if we see a person suffer great inconvenience, frustration, loss of resources, fear or threat to life, and so forth for doing "the right thing," (whatever we may conceive it to be) do we not suddenly find ourselves employing moral terms to describe it? And what other terms would be applicable, but those?