Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dontaskme]

In Gaza, women can be beaten at will, so long as the stick isn't thicker than a man's finger, children can be forced into marriage, and homosexuals can be thrown from a rooftop. These are lawful things, according to that society. It "reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves."

Not good enough. Many societies advocate things against which you would be rightly set.

Palestinian residents of these territories are predominantly Sunni Muslims, with small Shia and Ahmadi Muslim communities.

Muslims like any other human being on earth are hospitable and a peace-loving bunch of people, who just want to live a quiet, good life, like we all do, notice we're all breathing the same air and bleeding the same red blood, and feeling the same emotions. We're all just muddling through a life than no one ever asked to be born into. No one over any other knows anymore than the other as to what they are even doing in life, but just trying to get through it the best they can, basically just making it up as they go along...including the idea of there being a Holy Divine Creator Deity that is in control of all things ...an idea that is totally beyond any human's capacity to fully comprehend or grasp.

But aside from the obvious, maybe the people's mind-set of these Islamic territories are no different than that of the loving Christian God of the Bible. Except to say, that they have chosen to take moral matters into their own physical hands, and bestow upon anyone of their people a severe punishment for stepping out of line with their morally valued core principles, namely, (The fundamental concept of Islam is the Sharīʿāh law, it's law, which embraces the total way of life commanded by God.) Known as the sharīʿah (literally, “path leading to the watering place”), the law represents a divinely ordained path of conduct that guides Muslims toward a practical expression of religious conviction in this world and the goal of divine favour in the world to come.



So is the God of Islam any different to the Christian God of the Bible who says every child is born a sinner and threatens them with hell fire for the rest of eternity for stepping out of line with God's morally valued core principles?? and that those who choose atheism will not enter the divine kingdom of heaven to come....Hmm, sounds familiar doesn't it.

The only difference I can see is that Islamic rule will act out punishments in actual realtime physicality...whereas the Christian Bible says punishment will be given to everyone who are held to account on Judgement Day...whenever that is....but at least with Islam, their punishment is dealt with in the instant of realtime, and not some time in the future that never comes.


If muslims behaved exactly according to their core moral principles they have chosen to set-out for themselves, then they'll be good, no problem, just like the Christian God says same.

[FlashDangerpants]

One point is Blackburn [and the majority who read Kant] understood Kant's Ethics to be purely and literally deontological, e.g. "where Kant mentioned it is a categorical imperative 'lying is not permissible' those who do not get the nuances, meant it is absolute even if one's children and other innocent lives are at stake.

Surely they must use their brain to understand a person of Kant's intelligence and rationality would not have insisted on such an imperative as absolute.

The rational view is that those have such a belief must understand they have misunderstood Kant and missed the nuances Kant presented.

Note I have argued whatever is a categorical imperative is never to be enforced but merely be used as an ideal and a guide only.

One point is enough, I won't go into the others.

You did read those chapters of Blackburn, didn't you? How does the above relate to what Blackburn actually wrote? Please show us in the text where Blackburn makes an error.

[Dontaskme]

My personal subjective belief is that it's not wrong to experience homosexuality. My personal subjective belief also states that somebody who believes (not me) the experience of homosexuality is wrong, is in my opinion, not objectively wrong to have that belief, that person would be right in their own personal subjective belief to state that the experience of homosexuality is wrong, else why would they even have the belief in the first place, if they doubted in their own mind, whether their belief was true or not? but then they could change their mind of course, in which case they'd still believe their belief is the true and correct one.

All this is, is an elaborate way of saying, "I can tell you nothing whatsover about the actual moral status of homosexuality. One side could be right, the other side could be right...in fact, everybody's simultaneously right and wrong, and homosexuality has no moral status at all."

Since you have no information about the moral status of anything, then, what is your point about homosexuality?

You asked me the question:

Immanuel Can wrote: If somebody believed it was objectively wrong to "experience homosexuality," would they be objectively wrong?

No, not on my account they wouldn't be wrong, as it's not objectively wrong in my worldview, so I wouldn't object to it as being wrong ever, even if someone else did.

And so I gave you the answer to your question. I gave you information about the moral staus of homosexuality as I believe it to be, I said it's my belief it is not objectively wrong. And then I said if someone chooses to believe the opposite, that's their prerogative to do so. And that belief won't change my belief. So why isn't that information about the moral status of homosexuality good enough for you?

what is your point about homosexuality?

Why are you asking me that for?

I've already given you my reply to the question you aked me about the belief in homosexuality is objectively wrong. Did you miss it?

If you want to hear it again, my point about homosexuality is that it is not objectively wrong. Is that good enough for you, or do you object to me having that belief?

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
If muslims behaved exactly according to their core moral principles they have chosen to set-out for themselves, then they'll be good, no problem, just like the Christian God says same.

Don't that ignorant.
Here is the critical information you must be aware of;
viewtopic.php?p=673794#p673794

To qualify as a Christian or Muslim, both believers must sign a CONTRACT [covenant] with God who promised eternal life in heaven/paradise and avoiding Hell for compliance with the contractual terms which are in their holy texts.

The Christianity's contractual terms are in the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY are overriding pacifist,
while the contract terms of a Muslim obligate a Muslim to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion.

The degree of morality within Islam is 0[zero] while that of Christianity is reasonable.
What is seen as 'moral' within the Quran is only applicable to Muslims not to non-believers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One point is Blackburn [and the majority who read Kant] understood Kant's Ethics to be purely and literally deontological, e.g. "where Kant mentioned it is a categorical imperative 'lying is not permissible' those who do not get the nuances, meant it is absolute even if one's children and other innocent lives are at stake.

Surely they must use their brain to understand a person of Kant's intelligence and rationality would not have insisted on such an imperative as absolute.

The rational view is that those have such a belief must understand they have misunderstood Kant and missed the nuances Kant presented.

Note I have argued whatever is a categorical imperative is never to be enforced but merely be used as an ideal and a guide only.

One point is enough, I won't go into the others.

You did read those chapters of Blackburn, didn't you? How does the above relate to what Blackburn actually wrote? Please show us in the text where Blackburn makes an error.

I have already mentioned the general point above, if you have read the chapters you would noted my point or counter my point from what is therein. It is typical with the majority of those who read Kant and oppose the said point.
I don't want to reread the two chapters and other relevant section again at this moment.
But I will get to it later.

[FlashDangerpants]

One point is Blackburn [and the majority who read Kant] understood Kant's Ethics to be purely and literally deontological, e.g. "where Kant mentioned it is a categorical imperative 'lying is not permissible' those who do not get the nuances, meant it is absolute even if one's children and other innocent lives are at stake.

Surely they must use their brain to understand a person of Kant's intelligence and rationality would not have insisted on such an imperative as absolute.

The rational view is that those have such a belief must understand they have misunderstood Kant and missed the nuances Kant presented.

Note I have argued whatever is a categorical imperative is never to be enforced but merely be used as an ideal and a guide only.

One point is enough, I won't go into the others.

You did read those chapters of Blackburn, didn't you? How does the above relate to what Blackburn actually wrote? Please show us in the text where Blackburn makes an error.

I have already mentioned the general point above, if you have read the chapters you would noted my point or counter my point from what is therein.
I don't want to reread the two chapters and other relevant section again at this moment.
But I will get to it later.

Please tell us what you think of Blackburn's linking of practical reason to pure reason via the categorical imperative? That bit from Ch7 I actually used, so perhaps that is what set you on this weird collision course?

Or address any other words that Blackburn actually wrote, words that you completely did read. It seems odd that you read them in the last couple of days and decided Blackburn was lacking, but have already forgotten what he wrote.

[Dontaskme]

.........
If muslims behaved exactly according to their core moral principles they have chosen to set-out for themselves, then they'll be good, no problem, just like the Christian God says same.

Don't that ignorant.
Here is the critical information you must be aware of;
viewtopic.php?p=673794#p673794

To qualify as a Christian or Muslim, both believers must sign a CONTRACT [covenant] with God who promised eternal life in heaven/paradise and avoiding Hell for compliance with the contractual terms which are in their holy texts.

The Christianity's contractual terms are in the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY are overriding pacifist,
while the contract terms of a Muslim obligate a Muslim to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion.

The degree of morality within Islam is 0[zero] while that of Christianity is reasonable.
What is seen as 'moral' within the Quran is only applicable to Muslims not to non-believers.

Well it's been known for a long time you have some serious beef with the conduct of Islamic fanatical extremeism.

The only difference I can see between the two religions in my opinion, is that Islam deals with morality in the here and now where it ought and should be dealt with. Whereas Christianity deals with moral issues in some fantasized Judgement Day that never comes, meanwhile every poor unsuspecting sinner is just left to it's own devices to run around the earth committing all sorts of immoral henius crimes against humanity while their so called good God just simply looks on in complete indifference and detachment, which I personally think is unreasonable. As least Islam do something about the immorality of humanity in the here and now.

But all this nonsense, is just the world according to mans made up BS Religion, and that's why I'm out, and not taking it seriously.

I looked into religion and played along with the idea for a long while, only to find it all very stupid, so I dropped it like a hot potatoe and believed in it never again, I only talk about it to make points about how pathetic and stupid it all is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
If muslims behaved exactly according to their core moral principles they have chosen to set-out for themselves, then they'll be good, no problem, just like the Christian God says same.

Don't that ignorant.
Here is the critical information you must be aware of;
viewtopic.php?p=673794#p673794

To qualify as a Christian or Muslim, both believers must sign a CONTRACT [covenant] with God who promised eternal life in heaven/paradise and avoiding Hell for compliance with the contractual terms which are in their holy texts.

The Christianity's contractual terms are in the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY are overriding pacifist,
while the contract terms of a Muslim obligate a Muslim to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion.

The degree of morality within Islam is 0[zero] while that of Christianity is reasonable.
What is seen as 'moral' within the Quran is only applicable to Muslims not to non-believers.

Well it's been known for a long time you have some serious beef with the conduct of Islamic fanatical extremeism.

The only difference I can see between the two religions in my opinion, is that Islam deals with morality in the here and now where it ought and should be dealt with. Whereas Christianity deals with moral issues in some fantasized Judgement Day that never comes, meanwhile every poor unsuspecting sinner is just left to it's own devices to run around the earth committing all sorts of immoral henius crimes against humanity while their so called good God just simply looks on in complete indifference and detachment, which I personally think is unreasonable. As least Islam do something about the immorality of humanity in the here and now.

But all this nonsense, is just the world according to mans made up BS Religion, and that's why I'm out, and not taking it seriously.

I looked into religion and played along with the idea for a long while, only to find it all very stupid, so I dropped it like a hot potatoe and believed in it ever again, I only talk about it to make points about how pathetic and stupid it all is.

Where are your facts to support your view on morality between Christianity vs Islam?

My views are based on facts.
Note I have scrutinized the Quran's 114 chapters, 6236 verses and >77,000 words in details, thus is familiar with its Constitution inside out.

You???
don't just listen to hearsays, read the Quran inside out and scrutinize every word therein.

You cannot ignore Islam as a religion like an ostrich where your back will be an open target for extremists, the so-called good compliant Muslims.

[Dontaskme]

Don't that ignorant.
Here is the critical information you must be aware of;
viewtopic.php?p=673794#p673794

To qualify as a Christian or Muslim, both believers must sign a CONTRACT [covenant] with God who promised eternal life in heaven/paradise and avoiding Hell for compliance with the contractual terms which are in their holy texts.

The Christianity's contractual terms are in the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY are overriding pacifist,
while the contract terms of a Muslim obligate a Muslim to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion.

The degree of morality within Islam is 0[zero] while that of Christianity is reasonable.
What is seen as 'moral' within the Quran is only applicable to Muslims not to non-believers.

Well it's been known for a long time you have some serious beef with the conduct of Islamic fanatical extremeism.

The only difference I can see between the two religions in my opinion, is that Islam deals with morality in the here and now where it ought and should be dealt with. Whereas Christianity deals with moral issues in some fantasized Judgement Day that never comes, meanwhile every poor unsuspecting sinner is just left to it's own devices to run around the earth committing all sorts of immoral henius crimes against humanity while their so called good God just simply looks on in complete indifference and detachment, which I personally think is unreasonable. As least Islam do something about the immorality of humanity in the here and now.

But all this nonsense, is just the world according to mans made up BS Religion, and that's why I'm out, and not taking it seriously.

I looked into religion and played along with the idea for a long while, only to find it all very stupid, so I dropped it like a hot potatoe and believed in it ever again, I only talk about it to make points about how pathetic and stupid it all is.

Where are your facts to support your view on morality between Christianity vs Islam?

My views are based on facts.
Note I have scrutinized the Quran's 114 chapters, 6236 verses and >77,000 words in details, thus is familiar with its Constitution inside out.

You???
don't just listen to hearsays, read the Quran inside out and scrutinize every word therein.

It's a fact, in my opinion, that Religion is a man-made concept that does not and never will never exist in the real world outside of human conceptual language. It's a freaking tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. End of.

Meanwhile,life just carries on the way it always is, was, and ever will be. Nothing happens, and nothing changes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a fact, in my opinion, that Religion is a man-made concept that does not and never will never exist in the real world outside of human conceptual language. It's a freaking tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. End of.

Meanwhile,life just carries on the way it always is, was, and ever will be. Nothing happens, and nothing changes.

I edited to add this;

You cannot ignore Islam as a religion like an ostrich where your back will be an open target for extremists, the so-called good compliant Muslims.

When you are faced with a religious believer[s] putting a knife to your throat, whatever your opinion of religion is useless.
Thus understanding the principles of evil religions [even the belief is false] is critical to get rid of the root causes of real evil before you be a victim to it.

[Sculptor]

Use your common sense.
That is the minimal for every book I stored.
Where did I state explicitly those are the only sections I read for every book.

Note I edited to include this in my previous post.

• Even Henry Allison with more than 40 years as a Professor specializing in Kant admitted openly his missed out a critical point in the Critique of Pure Reason.
  In the Preface of his book; Transcendental Idealism: Interpretation and Defence, Allison wrote;
  • I was awakened from my “dogmatic slumber" on this issue, however, by the work of a former student, Michelle Grier.
    First in her Dissertation and then, more substantively, in an important book based upon it, Grier has shown conclusively that for Kant Transcendental illusion is inherent in the very nature of human reason.3
  If Allison a pro-Kantian could missed out such a critical point, what more with Blackburn an anti-Kantian[?] with superficial knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

Ah!

So in your won words please tell us all what is meant by the phrase "Transcendental illusion "!
#
I can wait.

If I am not mistaken you idolize the philosophy of your great grandfather David Hume?

Hume's philosophy asserts the following;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

Hume: An "Unknown Something" is a Fiction
viewtopic.php?t=40813

Hume claimed those who do not agree with the above as grasping at an illusion and think it is really-real [i.e. as a mind-independent objective reality].
According to Hume why the realists are so stubborn in clinging to the above mind-independent reality is due to the inherent psychological drives in all humans via evolution that had facilitated survival and sustain the survival of the species.

From what you have posted, re the existent of an independent objective reality, you would not have agreed with Hume.

Kant was awoke from his dogmatic slumber of mind-independence [philosophical realism] and he agreed that clinging to mind-independence is delusional and labelled this with Transcendental Illusion which he implied is driven psychologically.

Allision was woken from his 'dogmatic slumber' from the precise knowledge of the principles & mechanisms of this Transcendental Illusion [after >40 years involvement with Kant] by his student.

Wrong answer

[Atla]

The truth is that we simply can't know if the categories of the understanding can be applied to the noumenal world to some non-zero degree, or not. Kant just said that we can't do it at all, which is exactly the kind of (negative) knowledge claim that his philosophy prohibits us from making.

Was this a valid two-sentence refutation of a major part of Kantian philosophy? Or did I make an error somewhere?
(If that's what he meant which is still unclear to me.)

[Dontaskme]

It's a fact, in my opinion, that Religion is a man-made concept that does not and never will never exist in the real world outside of human conceptual language. It's a freaking tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. End of.

Meanwhile,life just carries on the way it always is, was, and ever will be. Nothing happens, and nothing changes.

I edited to add this;

You cannot ignore Islam as a religion like an ostrich where your back will be an open target for extremists, the so-called good compliant Muslims.

When you are faced with a religious believer[s] putting a knife to your throat, whatever your opinion of religion is useless.
Thus understanding the principles of evil religions [even the belief is false] is critical to get rid of the root causes of real evil before you be a victim to it.

The only way to kill the root of the problem of evil is to stop giving birth to entities who will also become subject to the knowlede of evil passed onto them by the people who came before them who told them about it.

That's where the root lies, if you are talking about a root, then that root must have some sort of location where it can be pinned down to.

It's no good just talking about getting rid of the root causes of evil and then continuing to give birth to new entities who then have to come and live in an evil world that they themselves did not create. The root of all evil must come from the knower of evil, I mean where else does the knowledge of evil come from.. the baked bean can behind the tomato ketchup bottle on the second shelf in the kitchen cupboard above the toaster??

Sorry, I just can't take humanity and it's ways seriously anymore. Seems we're all unfortunately stuck here on this clown planet of people wearing upside down frowns for most of their life, believing it's all just normal human activity, the nature of being human, which it does seem to be true as evidenced.

I just don't get it, why it's seen as perfectly normal and acceptable to bring a child into an evil world where they may become victim and get their throat slit open by some other human. What if this planet is HELL? what if we're all in Hell, and there is a God, and God was right to talk about hell?

[FlashDangerpants]

Based on whatever I have read of 'Ruling Passion' especially Chapter 7 & 8

Did you word that carefully to avoid saying that you have read those chapters of that book?
You haven't actually read Chapter 7 or 8 have you?

[Harbal]

In democracy, a person is elected, and held morally accountable for a limited term, and he has to make moral decisions. You're talking about the actual moral decisions not being made by a morally-accountable delegate, but being simply determined by who has the most force of numbers.

I am thinking of law that reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves.

In Gaza, women can be beaten at will, so long as the stick isn't thicker than a man's finger, children can be forced into marriage, and homosexuals can be thrown from a rooftop. These are lawful things, according to that society. It "reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves."

Not good enough. Many societies advocate things against which you would be rightly set.

Therefore what? None of that suggests that God exists.

That is probably true, and even those of us who have thought about it enough to realise there is no such thing as objective moral truth still tend to behave as though there were. I think I have said this before.

See that? You've just answered your own question: "even those of us who have thought about it enough to realise there is no such thing as objective moral truth still tend to behave as though there were." You don't see this mob rule, because the residual effects on people's consciences from years of following morality as if objective has trained them into such behaviour.

The problem, though is what happens when they actually start to believe that morality is subjective, and that realization penetrates far enough that it begins to erode their old convictions and become reflected in their actual behaviour. Then they discover they had no reason to believe those old prohibitions and values in the first place, and sequentially their good behavior begins to decay into chaotic and destructive behavior. Watch for it. It's coming. Already, we see it happening, if your eyes are really open. You may see allowing baby murder as progress; and you will possibly see killing the elderly the same way, and every form of sexual deviance, and then things like mob rule, media propagandization, and dictatorship.

For those with open eyes, we can already see how far down that road we are. But there's much farther coming; and unless society rediscovers that some things are just objectively right, and some are objectively wrong, and comes back to at least some rough moral consensus and agreement about basic human rights, you're going to see some things you never believed society would ever do.

You keep doing this and it is irrelevant to what we are arguing about. You might be right; if everyone believed in God and followed his wishes, the world could well be a better place for everyone, who knows? So if you are saying the whole world needs to be convinced that this is true in order to make things better, that would be a legitimate argument, but not an appropriate one in this thread, because we are discussing what is and isn't true, not what would make the world a nicer place if only it were true.

I daresay that some of our laws do contain elements that are a throwback to more religious times, but I would like to think those elements are gradually being weeded out.

Well, just for fun, and as an heuristic exercise, let's suppose that were true; and let's even suppose, for argument's sake, that it would be a good thing. What principles would we refer to, in order to know which of the old laws needed to be "weeded out," and which ones would be immoral to "weed out"?

If there are no such principles, how do you know you are watching the law make some kind of moral progress, versus watching morality slide into the ditch?

There is nothing to stop us from having principles without having to look to God for them. I have principles and moral standards that don't come from God, and most people seem to find my moral behaviour acceptable, so I know that to be true.