What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

I think your primary interest here is the promotion of Christianity, and philosophy is just something you use to try to disguise that fact.

Interesting. So if somebody is frank and open about what he actually believes, and actually applies it to his sense of the universe, he's "disguising" something? And if he's a Christian, then he has to shelve that when he does philosophy, you think?

In the course of most philosophy arguments, your interlocutor doesn't tell you you are going to Hell if you don't see things the same as they do.

I haven't made a point of that. People have asked me, and I've been undeceptive about answering them. However, (setting aside the imprecision of the term you're choosing) if a Christian believes that, and if it's integral to his worldview, then it would surely be less than honest to hide that, would it not? It would also be unspeakably cruel and callous to his conversation partners, would it not?

There is no rational argument to reconcile a belief in God with reality as we experience it,

Oh, that's clearly not the case. There is an abundance of such.

It is clearly the case in my case.

Well, that is one strategy I identified...simply refuse to know. That's possible. People do that.

So you do actually think we owe each other something?

Absolutely. It could not be any other way, with moral objectivism. But the subjectivist, what does he owe anybody?

How could you possibly know what reason any individual might have for thinking he owes moral consideration to others?

His frank declaration. If morality is subjective, then any "feeling" he has, or any "thinking about" it should be consistent with the truth as he claims it is. If morality is truly subjective, then, in fact, nobody owes anybody anything, and nobody really should be indulging any feeling he does. He should get over his squeamishness, and live boldly.

Nietzsche said that. And yes, I know you don't want to hear from Nietzsche.

]Since you have taken it upon yourself to redefine the word, morality, and introduced your own set of rules governing how it must be practiced, I am left in no position to disagree, am I?

You're misunderstanding. I'm not "redefining" anything. I'm analytically unpacking what morality always means.

Morality is about how we behave towards each other.

That's part of the definition. It's not the whole of it. It's also about how we regulate our impulses, so as to do right rather than merely to do the convenient or the easy. That, too, is part of the basic nature of the moral.

It's this thing I was talking about, "conscience." It's the same faculty that alerts us all to the existence of God...or at least it's one such faculty.

I have a conscience, but it doesn't even remotely suggest God to me.

I think it does. Why else would you be so incensed at the whole idea of people talking about God?

Why should a moral subjectivist be moral at all? Maybe that's the essential question here.

No, the essential question is, why shouldn't he be?

It's the other way around, actually.

Remember that morality asks us to put aside our selfishness, our impulses, our desires and our own agenda, in many cases. So the default we have is to please ourselves, and "Devil take the rest." If we are not going to be ruled by our own impulses, selfishness or agenda, we will need reasons why we shouldn't be...because those incentives are powerful to us. But the desire to behave "morally," particularly when we don't have a fixed idea of what "morality" is, or believe all our ideas about it are "merely subjective," is a very, very weak impulse in human beings.

If I'm a kid, and I see candy on the table, my first impulse is to have some. It's only a second impulse to ask, "Should I," or "Why shouldn't I?"

It is not for you to tell him what is or isn't a legitimate reason for behaving morally.

"It's not for you..." Marvelous.

What do you mean by, "It's not for you..."? If morality is subjective, then what's "for me" to do is anything I subjectively wish to do. But if there's an "it's not for you," you're tacitly appealing to an objective moral standard -- that it is immoral for a person to tell anybody else what is a reason for behaving morally."

He "feels" twinges of conscience, maybe; but in his worldview, he has to believe they are delusions, a sort of weird feeling of owing to others things that he actually does not owe.

How can you say what he "has" to believe?

Well, I mean only if he wants to be rational, and if he wishes to keep his declarations and actions consistent with the beliefs he says he has. And I assume that most people, and all good, intelligent and rational people, would want to do that. So I can say it rather easily, based on what he himself has already declared as his beliefs.

So why should a moral subjectivist follow these weird twinges

You know how you sometimes get an unbearable itch in your foot, and even though you know there isn't anything actually wrong with your foot, you feel compelled to scratch it? Well it is quite similar to that. I mean, an itch is just a subjective sensation, isn't it? A delusion, to put in in your terms.

Well, then, if a man feels "itchy" about rape, maybe he won't do it. If he feels "itchy" about charity, maybe he'll give some. But his "itch" isn't a particularly "moral" feeling...it's just a physical sensation or a mental imagining to which he's responding.

That's another part of the basic definition of what the moral entails: it entails a contradiction of one's own instinctive impulses. It requires a sacrifice for principle over pragmatics.

[Harbal]

It is clearly the case in my case.

Well, that is one strategy I identified...simply refuse to know. That's possible. People do that.

I don't need to refuse to know, because it wouldn't occur to me in the first place.

How could you possibly know what reason any individual might have for thinking he owes moral consideration to others?

His frank declaration. If morality is subjective, then any "feeling" he has, or any "thinking about" it should be consistent with the truth as he claims it is.

He is only claiming not to have an objective reason, but that in no way prevents from having a subjective reason. People do things for subjective reasons all the time.

If morality is truly subjective, then, in fact, nobody owes anybody anything, and nobody really should be indulging any feeling he does. He should get over his squeamishness, and live boldly.

The thought of someone behaving morally for none objective reasons is obviously intolerable to you, but if you could get over your squeamishness you might see it as a good thing.

Morality is about how we behave towards each other.

That's part of the definition. It's not the whole of it.

No, but I don't feel obliged to recognise the bits you've added to it.

I have a conscience, but it doesn't even remotely suggest God to me.

I think it does. Why else would you be so incensed at the whole idea of people talking about God?

Apart from its getting on my nerves, I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.

Remember that morality asks us to put aside our selfishness, our impulses, our desires and our own agenda, in many cases. So the default we have is to please ourselves, and "Devil take the rest." If we are not going to be ruled by our own impulses, selfishness or agenda, we will need reasons why we shouldn't be...because those incentives are powerful to us. But the desire to behave "morally," particularly when we don't have a fixed idea of what "morality" is, or believe all our ideas about it are "merely subjective," is a very, very weak impulse in human beings.

You are assuming that objective reasons are more compelling than subjective ones, but I don't accept that is necessarily true.

It is not for you to tell him what is or isn't a legitimate reason for behaving morally.

"It's not for you..." Marvelous.

What do you mean by, "It's not for you..."? If morality is subjective, then what's "for me" to do is anything I subjectively wish to do. But if there's an "it's not for you," you're tacitly appealing to an objective moral standard -- that it is immoral for a person to tell anybody else what is a reason for behaving morally."

What I mean is; you don't know what someone's reasons might be, and your judgement as to whether they are legitimate is irrelevant.

How can you say what he "has" to believe?

Well, I mean only if he wants to be rational, and if he wishes to keep his declarations and actions consistent with the beliefs he says he has. And I assume that most people, and all good, intelligent and rational people, would want to do that. So I can say it rather easily, based on what he himself has already declared as his beliefs.

Why can't he believe that his own subjective conscience puts an obligation on him? Doing what your conscience urges is rational if you don't want to feel bad about yourself later.

Well, then, if a man feels "itchy" about rape, maybe he won't do it. If he feels "itchy" about charity, maybe he'll give some. But his "itch" isn't a particularly "moral" feeling...it's just a physical sensation or a mental imagining to which he's responding.

I agree, an itching foot is not a good moral guide, but an itching conscience certainly is.

That's another part of the basic definition of what the moral entails: it entails a contradiction of one's own instinctive impulses. It requires a sacrifice for principle over pragmatics.

Subjectivism neither prohibits the having of principles, nor acting on them.

[Skepdick]

The thought of someone behaving morally for none objective reasons

What makes their behaviour "moral" then?

This perpetual smuggling of moral language into our daily lives is so weird from the crowd who's trying to dispense with the objectivity of morality.

[iambiguous]

So, which is it with you? How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist? Or do you admit that one of the other denominations may actually be the real deal instead?

What a profoundly stupid question!

How close to 100% certain are you that Truth exists? Or do you admit that one of the other philosophical denomination is The Real Deal instead?
Which philosophy do you think closest to the mark and should amass a monopoly on Truth?

You are simply being impressed by alternative vocabularies/philosophies which speak about one and the same Truth.

Ironism

1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.
— Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

I am 100% certain. Truth is there, everywhere, all around you. Waiting for you to exit Plato's cave.

What I am forever uncertain of is the human element necessary for the understanding of Truth.

Absolutely shameless!!!

Seriously though, if there is no God, you die and that's it: oblivion. But if "in Truth" there is one and He is able to provide you with immortality and salvation for all the rest of eternity, how close to 100% certain would you want to be that you are worshipping and adoring the right God?

Either pick one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...or, sure, add your own.

Or, perhaps, simply ask yourself, "what would Richard Rorty do?"

[Skepdick]

Absolutely shameless!!!

Seriously though, if there is no G̶o̶d̶ Truth, you die and that's it: oblivion. But if "in Truth" there is one and He is able to provide you with immortality and salvation for all the rest of eternity, how close to 100% certain would you want to be that you are worshipping and adoring the right G̶o̶d̶ Truth?

Either pick one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...or, sure, add your own.

It appears to me you have absolutely no idea what any of your words or questions mean.

I fixed it for you where I can. But.. tell me what do you mean by "right"?

Could you paraphrase your response without any moral language, please.

Or, perhaps, simply ask yourself, "what would Richard Rorty do?"

Why does the question even matter? He could do anything. There's no right or wrong way to do it...

[Immanuel Can]

It is clearly the case in my case.

Well, that is one strategy I identified...simply refuse to know. That's possible. People do that.

I don't need to refuse to know, because it wouldn't occur to me in the first place.

Then one simply can refuse to find out what has not formerly occurred to one. And that's easy: just stay away from anything that deals with the issues in a substantive manner, that is not already slanted to providing one with what one already expects to find.

It's the same thing.

How could you possibly know what reason any individual might have for thinking he owes moral consideration to others?

His frank declaration. If morality is subjective, then any "feeling" he has, or any "thinking about" it should be consistent with the truth as he claims it is.

He is only claiming not to have an objective reason, but that in no way prevents from having a subjective reason. People do things for subjective reasons all the time.

It depends on what you mean by "reason," then. You're only using it as a synonym for "motive," which is legit but too vague. And people can have all kinds of "motives," rational and irrational, so in that sense, you're correct.

But the assumption of philosophy is that rational answers are better than irrational guesses. And somebody who is using reason -- meaning the faculities of logic, consistency, evidence, and so forth -- is thereby compelled only to insist on conclusions that rationalize with assumptions.

And that is the case here. We're doing philosophy, after all.

If morality is truly subjective, then, in fact, nobody owes anybody anything, and nobody really should be indulging any feeling he does. He should get over his squeamishness, and live boldly.

The thought of someone behaving morally for none objective reasons is obviously intolerable to you,

Not "intolerable." Not even "troubling." Just logically absurd. Why should people respond to things they don't think even exist?

...you might see it as a good thing.

Oh, I do. We all have reasons to thank God every day that people who claim to be subjectivists don't live like they are. We'd be in one heck of a bad state if they did.

Morality is about how we behave towards each other.

That's part of the definition. It's not the whole of it.

No, but I don't feel obliged to recognise the bits you've added to it.

Not added. Just additionally analyzed as inherently belonging to it. I'm speaking analytically.

I have a conscience, but it doesn't even remotely suggest God to me.

I think it does. Why else would you be so incensed at the whole idea of people talking about God?

Apart from its getting on my nerves, I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.

Apparently this is new information, then.

Remember that morality asks us to put aside our selfishness, our impulses, our desires and our own agenda, in many cases. So the default we have is to please ourselves, and "Devil take the rest." If we are not going to be ruled by our own impulses, selfishness or agenda, we will need reasons why we shouldn't be...because those incentives are powerful to us. But the desire to behave "morally," particularly when we don't have a fixed idea of what "morality" is, or believe all our ideas about it are "merely subjective," is a very, very weak impulse in human beings.

You are assuming that objective reasons are more compelling than subjective ones, but I don't accept that is necessarily true.

Subjective ones are not actually "compelling" at all. They're totally optional. So almost anything is "more compelling" than that.

But "compulsion" isn't the issue. "Compulsion" is just a use of power. The issue is duty, meaning, what are others due from me, and what is due to me, by way of behavior?

It is not for you to tell him what is or isn't a legitimate reason for behaving morally.

"It's not for you..." Marvelous.

What do you mean by, "It's not for you..."? If morality is subjective, then what's "for me" to do is anything I subjectively wish to do. But if there's an "it's not for you," you're tacitly appealing to an objective moral standard -- that it is immoral for a person to tell anybody else what is a reason for behaving morally."

What I mean is; you don't know what someone's reasons might be, and your judgement as to whether they are legitimate is irrelevant.

Well, if subjectivism is true, then it's "for me" to do or say anything at all that I subjectively wish to say or do. That should be obvious.

How can you say what he "has" to believe?

Well, I mean only if he wants to be rational, and if he wishes to keep his declarations and actions consistent with the beliefs he says he has. And I assume that most people, and all good, intelligent and rational people, would want to do that. So I can say it rather easily, based on what he himself has already declared as his beliefs.

Why can't he believe that his own subjective conscience puts an obligation on him?

He can "believe" that. He can choose anything he wants, no matter how unrealistic it is. But it won't make it so. And when his mood changes, so can his morals. He must know that, too.

Doing what your conscience urges is rational if you don't want to feel bad about yourself later.

Sure...but interrogate that: think deeper. If something only makes you "feel" a certain way, but no objective reality corresponds to that "feeling," then you ought to get over it. That would be the smart thing to do. Why make yourself constrained by a mere "feeling" that you know is an illusion? There is no such thing as actually, objective, obligatory morality...so grow up and act like their isn't. That was Nietzsche's point.

Well, then, if a man feels "itchy" about rape, maybe he won't do it. If he feels "itchy" about charity, maybe he'll give some. But his "itch" isn't a particularly "moral" feeling...it's just a physical sensation or a mental imagining to which he's responding.

I agree, an itching foot is not a good moral guide, but an itching conscience certainly is.

Then that's where the analogy fails: "itch" is not an adequate word for "moral prompting." It's reductional. That's why I wouldn't have used it as an equivalent. But it wasn't I who floated the analogy...

That's another part of the basic definition of what the moral entails: it entails a contradiction of one's own instinctive impulses. It requires a sacrifice for principle over pragmatics.

Subjectivism neither prohibits the having of principles, nor acting on them.

No, that's true. It just makes them all empty quirks. There are no objective "moral principles," so the having of them is totally optional...as is their abandonment.

And when slavery becomes fashionable again (which it actually already is, worldwide) then you'd have to say that it's also "moral" and "principled." For those words mean nothing outside of the subjective, and the subjective has changed.

In your world, then, there can be no such thing as an "immoral society," or even an "immoral code." There are only "optional" ones. And since my moral code allows me, subjectively, to be a Christian, and my moral principles say I must be, what were you protesting about me?

You see, H., it's the old problem: a subjectivist cannot intelligently or legitimately protest anything, beyond saying, "Subjectively, I don't prefer that."

And violins, to that.

[iambiguous]

Oh, boy, here we go again!

ME:

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

Oh, absolutely.

Oh, absolutely indeed. After all, beyond a leap of faith and "because the Bible says so" you have "scientific proof" that the Christian God does exist. On the other hand, when I ask you to note the segments in the videos that demonstrate this, you basically come back with, "it's there."

And how about the points I raised in regard to the resurrection of Christ? You tell me what proof there is --- beyond the New Testament -- that this is an actual historical event. After all, suppose the Pope of Rome died and was resurrected by God. There would be an avalanche of hard evidence confirming it. So, what comes the closest to that in those videos?

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.

Come on, millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

How does the Christian God take that into account on Judgment Day?

Or they refuse to just accept arguments like yours that He exists. In all sincerity, they struggle with God and religion. Again, with objective morality, immortality and salvation on the line, like you, I believe that God and religion are the only path to them. Yet however honestly and deeply introspective many grapple with it, if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they are damned, right?

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.

Note to other Christians here:

Do you believe this?

Others don't agree with that at all:

"The Ten Commandments represent a basic framework for understanding morality. Without the guidance of the Ten Commandments, morality would be purely relative to an individual or culture. The Commandments, however, were given as part of a broader covenant agreement between God and the nation of Israel." IPL

So, is or is not this "broader covenant" derived from the Bible itself? It's just that while the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God -- the God of Abraham -- they have very different interpretations regarding what God expects of them regarding any number of behaviors some deem moral and others immoral. And Jews and Muslims don't include accepting Jesus Christ as their own personal savior as part of their own moral covenant, do they?

So, they're all Hell bound?

As you note...

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."

Back to "because the Bible says so" again!

How about noting segments from those YouTube videos that provide us with "scientific proof" of this?

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.

So, you are acknowledging then that your understanding of Christianity is predicated existentially on your own personal interpretation of the Bible and those videos? Derived from your own personal experiences. Just as those who have lived very, very different lives come to a different interpretation? Or a similar interpretation...only in regard to a different God?

Then back to why the Christian God flat-out fails to make it indisputably clear why He is the real deal in this Bible. Instead, most are left with no alternative other than a "leap of faith". The Bible is all that they do have to go by.

Imagine you are a Christian and the Bible did contain verses such that no one could doubt His existence. You come upon one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...and you show them these verses. They have no choice but to acknowledge that, "yes, the Christian God is the Creator!"

As for morality, like you, they would ever and always come around to asking themselves, "what would Jesus do?"

Isn't that your own approach to right and wrong behavior?

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?

Science? What scientist is able to provide one with access to immortality and salvation on Judgment Day? And what does science say about slavery and morality? Though, sure, there are no doubt those who embrace science in extolling the virtues of eugenics. Some here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- almost certainly.

Meanwhile, some progressive Christians insist that the last thing Jesus Christ would ever embrace is capitalism and their wage slaves. I've known a number of them myself in the past.

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.

You noted that a lot of people are wrong. Who are they if not those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior? Or are you actually suggesting that they may well be right about their God? That they may well be right when they note that it is you who are wrong?

As you note:

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.

Over and over and over again: with objective morality, immortality and salvation on the line, either you insist that 1] Christianity is right and all of the other denominations are wrong or 2] given that science itself has established the existence of the Christian God, only Christians are right.

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.

Logic and morality, logic and religion, logic and God.

So, let's run this by these guys and gals: https://aslonline.org/

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.

Besides, you don't have to make it. Instead, you thank God for those 17 YouTube videos. Now you know that He and only He is the one true God. It's somewhere in there for you.

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."

I'm sorry, but that sounds considerably more like a "leap of faith" to me. After all, there's nothing you say here that many of the folks here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...won't note instead about their own One True Path.

Only how many of them insist that, like you, they know their God and/or religious path is the right one. Scientifically.

So, which is it with you? How close to 100% certain are you that the Christian God does in fact exist? Or do you admit that one of the other denominations may actually be the real deal instead?

As their Bible says...

HIM:

...when I ask you to note the segments in the videos that demonstrate this, you basically come back with, "it's there."

Ah, I see...you're dissembling again.

If anyone looks back, he can see I quoted your very own words, showing that you claimed there was no scientific evidence of the existence of God. i refuted that, providing such evidence. And then you wanted to argue that none of the evidence should count as evidence.

But you don't want to be defeated on that. So now you want to deceive me, hoping I've forgotten the thread of our discussion, and cloud the issue as best you can? Well, that's a project in which I have no interest. If you don't like evidence, then carry on as you are; I can't "make" you believe anything you refuse to believe.

Happy trails.

Actually, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, this is nothing short of him collapsing. Again.

Happy trails? That's his way of saying "I'm done with you". Then down the road he's not. A reasonably substantive exchange unfolds between us. Then, once again, he's gone.

I suspect with me it revolves around those videos. Why? Because both of us are in agreement that if you want objective morality [a moral Scripture] on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, the only path to them is God.

But which one? Now, he might yammer on and on about how he and those videos have provided us with all the "scientific proof" we need to know that the Christian God does exist.

Yet, he refused to discuss this with me on the YouTube thread beyond a couple of puny posts such that in Stooge mode he makes it all about me.

So, I challenge others here to note what they construe to be the strongest evidence [scientific or otherwise] that he provided. Evidence, say, that prompted them to give serious thought to Christianity.

True Christianity.

Still, I really do wish that he would explore this part with me more in depth:

Come on, millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Christians, some will be Deists some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

Asking himself, "how is this not applicable to me?"

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, boy, here we go again!

You and I are not "going" anywhere, Biggie. I've seen what you're about.

[Harbal]

Well, that is one strategy I identified...simply refuse to know. That's possible. People do that.

I don't need to refuse to know, because it wouldn't occur to me in the first place.

Then one simply can refuse to find out what has not formerly occurred to one. And that's easy: just stay away from anything that deals with the issues in a substantive manner, that is not already slanted to providing one with what one already expects to find.

It's the same thing.

His frank declaration. If morality is subjective, then any "feeling" he has, or any "thinking about" it should be consistent with the truth as he claims it is.

He is only claiming not to have an objective reason, but that in no way prevents from having a subjective reason. People do things for subjective reasons all the time.

It depends on what you mean by "reason," then. You're only using it as a synonym for "motive," which is legit but too vague. And people can have all kinds of "motives," rational and irrational, so in that sense, you're correct.

But the assumption of philosophy is that rational answers are better than irrational guesses. And somebody who is using reason -- meaning the faculities of logic, consistency, evidence, and so forth -- is thereby compelled only to insist on conclusions that rationalize with assumptions.

And that is the case here. We're doing philosophy, after all.

If morality is truly subjective, then, in fact, nobody owes anybody anything, and nobody really should be indulging any feeling he does. He should get over his squeamishness, and live boldly.

The thought of someone behaving morally for none objective reasons is obviously intolerable to you,

Not "intolerable." Not even "troubling." Just logically absurd. Why should people respond to things they don't think even exist?

...you might see it as a good thing.

Oh, I do. We all have reasons to thank God every day that people who claim to be subjectivists don't live like they are. We'd be in one heck of a bad state if they did.

That's part of the definition. It's not the whole of it.

No, but I don't feel obliged to recognise the bits you've added to it.

Not added. Just additionally analyzed as inherently belonging to it. I'm speaking analytically.

I think it does. Why else would you be so incensed at the whole idea of people talking about God?

Apart from its getting on my nerves, I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.

Apparently this is new information, then.

Remember that morality asks us to put aside our selfishness, our impulses, our desires and our own agenda, in many cases. So the default we have is to please ourselves, and "Devil take the rest." If we are not going to be ruled by our own impulses, selfishness or agenda, we will need reasons why we shouldn't be...because those incentives are powerful to us. But the desire to behave "morally," particularly when we don't have a fixed idea of what "morality" is, or believe all our ideas about it are "merely subjective," is a very, very weak impulse in human beings.

You are assuming that objective reasons are more compelling than subjective ones, but I don't accept that is necessarily true.

Subjective ones are not actually "compelling" at all. They're totally optional. So almost anything is "more compelling" than that.

But "compulsion" isn't the issue. "Compulsion" is just a use of power. The issue is duty, meaning, what are others due from me, and what is due to me, by way of behavior?

"It's not for you..." Marvelous.

What do you mean by, "It's not for you..."? If morality is subjective, then what's "for me" to do is anything I subjectively wish to do. But if there's an "it's not for you," you're tacitly appealing to an objective moral standard -- that it is immoral for a person to tell anybody else what is a reason for behaving morally."

What I mean is; you don't know what someone's reasons might be, and your judgement as to whether they are legitimate is irrelevant.

Well, if subjectivism is true, then it's "for me" to do or say anything at all that I subjectively wish to say or do. That should be obvious.

Well, I mean only if he wants to be rational, and if he wishes to keep his declarations and actions consistent with the beliefs he says he has. And I assume that most people, and all good, intelligent and rational people, would want to do that. So I can say it rather easily, based on what he himself has already declared as his beliefs.

Why can't he believe that his own subjective conscience puts an obligation on him?

He can "believe" that. He can choose anything he wants, no matter how unrealistic it is. But it won't make it so. And when his mood changes, so can his morals. He must know that, too.

Doing what your conscience urges is rational if you don't want to feel bad about yourself later.

Sure...but interrogate that: think deeper. If something only makes you "feel" a certain way, but no objective reality corresponds to that "feeling," then you ought to get over it. That would be the smart thing to do. Why make yourself constrained by a mere "feeling" that you know is an illusion? There is no such thing as actually, objective, obligatory morality...so grow up and act like their isn't. That was Nietzsche's point.

Well, then, if a man feels "itchy" about rape, maybe he won't do it. If he feels "itchy" about charity, maybe he'll give some. But his "itch" isn't a particularly "moral" feeling...it's just a physical sensation or a mental imagining to which he's responding.

I agree, an itching foot is not a good moral guide, but an itching conscience certainly is.

Then that's where the analogy fails: "itch" is not an adequate word for "moral prompting." It's reductional. That's why I wouldn't have used it as an equivalent. But it wasn't I who floated the analogy...

That's another part of the basic definition of what the moral entails: it entails a contradiction of one's own instinctive impulses. It requires a sacrifice for principle over pragmatics.

Subjectivism neither prohibits the having of principles, nor acting on them.

No, that's true. It just makes them all empty quirks. There are no objective "moral principles," so the having of them is totally optional...as is their abandonment.

And when slavery becomes fashionable again (which it actually already is, worldwide) then you'd have to say that it's also "moral" and "principled." For those words mean nothing outside of the subjective, and the subjective has changed.

In your world, then, there can be no such thing as an "immoral society," or even an "immoral code." There are only "optional" ones. And since my moral code allows me, subjectively, to be a Christian, and my moral principles say I must be, what were you protesting about me?

You see, H., it's the old problem: a subjectivist cannot intelligently or legitimately protest anything, beyond saying, "Subjectively, I don't prefer that."

And violins, to that.

I've had enough for now, IC, my attention span is acting up again, but I will no doubt be back.

All your responses and counter arguments are rubbish, btw.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!!

Seriously though, if there is no G̶o̶d̶ Truth, you die and that's it: oblivion. But if "in Truth" there is one and He is able to provide you with immortality and salvation for all the rest of eternity, how close to 100% certain would you want to be that you are worshipping and adoring the right G̶o̶d̶ Truth?

Either pick one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...or, sure, add your own.

It appears to me you have absolutely no idea what any of your words or questions mean.

I fixed it for you where I can. But.. tell me what do you mean by "right"?

Could you paraphrase your response without any moral language, please.

Or, perhaps, simply ask yourself, "what would Richard Rorty do?"

Why does the question even matter? He could do anything. There's no right or wrong way to do it...

All I can do is to note how, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion", it continues to amaze me that philosophy forums attract folks like this. ILP is now bursting at the seams with them. I can only hope -- and if there is a God, pray -- that PN doesn't collapse into yet another intellectual wasteland.

[Immanuel Can]

All your responses and counter arguments are rubbish, btw.

Good to know. I'll rearm myself for impending combat with more nuclear options.

[iambiguous]

Oh, boy, here we go again!

You and I are not "going" anywhere, Biggie. I've seen what you're about.

Of course:

If he's not embarrassed to make a fool out of himself here then I'm not embarrassed to suggest that he ought to be.



Now back to the part he and all the other God or No God objectivists among us avoid like the plague:

Come on, millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

He avoids this, in my view, because the focus shifts from what he believes about objective morality to how existentially he came to believe Christianity is the font instead of something else.

The only real consolation he has, it seems, is that he can ask all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...the same thing.

And then we move on to theodicy...


Oh, and this part...

"How close to 100% certain is he that the Christian God does in fact exist?"


Edit:

IC,

I really would be fascinated to follow an exchange between you and henry in regard to something I posted above in my exchange with him:

The whole point of religion for the vast majority of those who practice it "for all practical purposes" is to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of our soul there and then. The bit about eternity.

Now, in a manner I still do not grasp at all, henry "somehow" connects the dots "in his head" between morality, intuition, logic and the Deist God. But, for him, since he is uncertain about immortality and salvation, it all only seems to matter on this side of the grave.

Whereas you insist that, however closely you two share moral and political prejudices on this side of the grave, you will take yours to Heaven on Judgment Day and he will take his to Hell.

The same existential value judgments by and large but that apparently means squat if henry doesn't finally come around to accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

It's puzzling to me. How is it less puzzling to you?

[promethean75]

"You and I are not "going" anywhere, Biggie."

What IC really meant to say is this I think.

[promethean75]

Lol 'your crew run run run, your crew run run'.

[Immanuel Can]

IC,

I really would be fascinated to follow an exchange between you and henry...

I really would love a pony.

Sad that neither of us is going to get his wish.