Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

I came up with some unorthodox math and science, inspired by VA:

At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans.

Anywhere from 8 to 12,000 gods and goddesses have been worshipped from around 7,000 years ago to the present day.

it is safe to say that the number of gods worshipped throughout history is in the tens of thousands, if not more.

Let's say 10000. Atheists are atheists on all gods. And most theists, including the ones on this forum, believe in one god, but are atheists on the other 9999 gods.

So they are 99.99% atheists. Okay so far so good, now have to be professional and look at the sigma deviations:



So that's a roughly 4 sigma result.

In many scientific fields, a 4-sigma result is strong evidence for a real effect or phenomenon.

In scientific research, a result that is 4 sigma (σ) away from the mean is considered statistically significant and is often interpreted as a discovery. Sigma represents standard deviations from the mean in a normal distribution.

4 sigma: About 99.9937% of the data falls within 4 standard deviations from the mean.
In the context of particle physics, a discovery is typically claimed if the result is at least 5 sigma away from the mean, which corresponds to a confidence level of 99.99994%. This high threshold is used because in particle physics, experiments often deal with vast amounts of data, and even a small chance of a random fluctuation leading to a false positive must be minimized.

In other fields of science, a 4 sigma result would still be considered very strong evidence and would likely lead to further investigation and confirmation attempts. However, whether a 4 sigma result is considered conclusive or not can depend on the specific context and the standards of the particular scientific community.

So in almost every area, a 4 sigma result seems to be "good enough" to make a fairly confident statement. You guys are just atheists with an insignificant quirk that's hardly worth mentioning.

[Iwannaplato]

Why?

I have empathy for other people, unless they, as individuals, do something that eradicates it. Slavery is an extremely unpleasant to me way of treating people who I will feel empathy for.

You really need to reason your way to a postion on slavery?

I hate it, is that really all there is to it? If so: who cares?

I do, obviously. You didn't answer my question.

Those who profit from it like it a lot.

Sure, there are people without empathy or who have been told things that inhibit it. And they tend to be objectivists about it. They have their little justifcations also. After the fact reasoning. So, what. Do you think I don't know what they feel and believe? They've even written that down, many of the dead ones anyway.

Why are they wrong?They're not wrong, folks just don't wanna be slaves. Meh, they're meat, my meat, sez the slaver.

I don't know what this section is. Is it me, you, someone else?

Anyway: if you have no why behind your I hate slavery, thanks for answering my question.

Empathy. What's the why behind yours? Ideas? You need an argument to be against slavery? What happened to you? If it did. I don't know but it seems implicit that I must have some kind of logical reasoned argument against slavery to hate it and oppose it? Why?

I can certainly come up with arguments when dealing with slavers. I'm free to use all sorts of language and arguments. And while those might or might not include something based on empathy, I didn't reach my position via reasoning. Did you?

[iambiguous]

This particular moral nihilist readily acknowledges that morality is ubiquitous. It has to be. Why? Because if one chooses to interact with others in a community, one will almost certainly bump into others who come to very different conclusions regarding right and wrong behavior.

Philosophers call this "ethics". And then embrace ofttimes conflicting moral philosophies like deontology or utilitarianism or consequentialism or hedonism or nihilism...or one or another God or No God dogma.

My point, of course, is that morality is ubiquitously existential. It is derived from the world that we are thrown into adventitiously at birth. Worlds that construe good and evil from all manner of ever evolving historical and cultural contexts.

Why on Earth do you suppose that, thousands of years after the birth of philosophy -- Eastern and Western -- we are still hopelessly at odds in regard to countless conflicting goods?

And incest is only truly problematic in regard to possible biological defects. Otherwise, any number of men and women have engaged in incestuous relationships and found them entirely fulfilling. Myself, for example.

Then the part where Adam and Eve and Noah and Naamah must have engaged in incest themselves, right?

This strike my attention, so warrant a highlight.
Did I read it correctly that trigger a shock, especially with reference to this forum??

Okay, you are shocked by that. And, I suspect, not just theoretically up in intellectual clouds.

And, of course, if you are shocked that means all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to be shocked as well. Or, what, they will go to Hell?

Me, I loved my sister. I loved my first cousin. We weren't fools so we never engaged in actual copulation. But, yeah, the physical intimacy that we did share was enormously fulfilling.

And, actually, what would shock me with you is reading a post that was not way, way, way up there in the "serious philosophy" clouds.

There's a place for your didactic "theoretical" pontifications in philosophy, sure. But, from my own frame of mind, in regard to human morality, you either take your "technical" assumptions down out of the clouds or you become one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

[Immanuel Can]

Of course different people have different emotions over the same situation, that's the point.

Then it's obvious: we can't learn anything reliable about the moral status of an action, person or situation out of mere emotions. They don't remain constant or hold still long enough for us to know anything from them.

Harbal hates cold-blooded murder. Hamas loves it. What is the moral status of cold-blooded murder?

For most ordinary people, the moral issues that arise in their daily lives are usually things like, should I declare all my income to the tax man; is it okay to watch pornography online while the wife is out shopping or is it wrong to eat meat; that sort of stuff,

For you, living in the privileged West. Yes, that might be the limit. But you ain't "ordinary people" on a world scale -- or on a historical one, even prior to the middle of the last century. We are surrounded by what the rest of the world calls "First World Problems," meaning things so trivial the rest of the world cannot even imagine them.

But even so: given subjectivism's belief that we can go off emotions, what is the actual moral status of pornography-watching? How do you know?

so why do you keep going on about the throats of babies being cut?

Because it's a very clear case that shows how radically different "emotions" can be, even when they refer to a single situation. And it's actually not that far from home, for you: for you have favourable emotions toward butchering babies in utero, and I find it reprehensible. Do you doubt that that is the case?

So are my emotions giving us the moral status of abortion, or are yours?

Stop dodging the obvious. Emotions are not equal to morality. Neither is subjective preference.

[iambiguous]

Do you slit the throats of people you find obnoxious?

As a moral subjectivist: he has no reason not to outside of personal preference and fear of reprisal.

So if he supposes he can get away with it, and he wants to, then it's not immoral. And afterward, nobody can explain why they would have any right to incarcerate him either, since he will have done nothing immoral.

Maybe the kind of thinking that it takes to make somebody a Hamas terrorist isn't so hard to find after all.

You're still going to Hell, henry. Why? Because morality is objective. It's called Christianity. And however much you and IC share the same political prejudices "here and now", "there and then" he's saved and you're not.

Go ahead, ask him if this is not the bottom line.

On the other hand, start here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

IC claims that these videos allowed him to go beyond a leap of faith and "because it says so in the Bible" and finally nail down scientifically and historically that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the real deal.

It didn't work for me but given your own objectivist inclinations, it might work for you. You can then switch from Deism to Christianity and be with IC [eventually] for all of eternity. Soul to soul as it were.

As for Hamas, you try to explain to IC how they worship and adore the same God that he does.

[iambiguous]

Harbal hates cold-blooded murder. Hamas loves it. What is the moral status of cold-blooded murder?

From my own subjective frame of mind, thoughts and feelings about murder are rooted existentially in dasein. For some it's always immoral and for others it is not. And then down through the ages philosophers and theologians have been trying to finally pin it down once and for all. After all, most of them were not and are not sociopaths.

And while IC sees Hamas as cold-blooded murderers, he doesn't see Bibi and his own religious fanatics in Israel as cold-bloodedly murdering those 8,000+ men, women and children in Gaza.

Ah, but Hamas started it, right?

Unless, of course, you go back even farther as this guy does: https://youtu.be/zE8GCX1w3ys?si=Q7et0JAV01lcFbQl

Then the part that still fascinates me the most: how Christians, Muslims and Jews, butchering each other down through the centuries, all worship the same God!!!

I'm still waiting for IC to explain how he thinks this will all play out on Judgment Day.

[iambiguous]

I reckon God is God no matter what particular take any of us have on Him. Mannie's got his take, I got mine: God stays the same no matter what we think or how we differ.

Start here, henry:

https://www.goconnectingpoint.com/salva ... XDEALw_wcB

https://www.crossway.org.au/how-can-i-b ... VhEALw_wcB

John 14:6

"I am the path, the truth, and the energy of life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Now, you can don your Mr. Wiggle persona here and play the ecumenical -- pantheist? -- card if you wish. But the Christian God is not fooled!

Right, IC?

[Harbal]

Then it's obvious: we can't learn anything reliable about the moral status of an action, person or situation out of mere emotions. They don't remain constant or hold still long enough for us to know anything from them.

Harbal hates cold-blooded murder. Hamas loves it. What is the moral status of cold-blooded murder?

For most ordinary people, the moral issues that arise in their daily lives are usually things like, should I declare all my income to the tax man; is it okay to watch pornography online while the wife is out shopping or is it wrong to eat meat; that sort of stuff,

For you, living in the privileged West. Yes, that might be the limit. But you ain't "ordinary people" on a world scale -- or on a historical one, even prior to the middle of the last century. We are surrounded by what the rest of the world calls "First World Problems," meaning things so trivial the rest of the world cannot even imagine them.

This conflict between Hamas and Israel; what is one of the major and most significant factors that divides them, aside from the minor issue of the Palestinians having their homeland stolen right from under them. Religion is what. And you would fix it all by pouring even more religious crap into the mix, like petrol onto a fire.

And it's not as if you or I can do anything about it anyway, except maybe vote for the political party in our respective countries whose foreign policy we most closely agree with. So yes, to me, morality is mostly about the more trivial, mundane things in life, and how I conduct myself in relation to them.

But even so: given subjectivism's belief that we can go off emotions, what is the actual moral status of pornography-watching? How do you know?

What social harm does it do? I don't know, so I don't have an opinion. I imagine there are people like sociologists, and various other ists, who do know, and I wouldn't presume to tell them I know better than they do; although I do realise that you don't have such inhibitions.

so why do you keep going on about the throats of babies being cut?

Because it's a very clear case that shows how radically different "emotions" can be, even when they refer to a single situation. And it's actually not that far from home, for you: for you have favourable emotions toward butchering babies in utero, and I find it reprehensible. Do you doubt that that is the case?

I don't doubt it in the slightest; the very word, "abortion" gives me a whacking erection.

So are my emotions giving us the moral status of abortion, or are yours?

Mine are informing me, and fuck knows what is informing you.

Stop dodging the obvious. Emotions are not equal to morality. Neither is subjective preference.

Well if you are going to sell me objective morality, you are going to have to find a way of leaving God out of the deal, so I'll leave it with you.

[Iwannaplato]

But even so: given subjectivism's belief that we can go off emotions,

Not quite. It's that we DO, already, go off emotions and desires and preferences. Including the objectivists.
That's the oversimplified version. If we add a layer...we also do/believe what we're told (often out of fear and guilt which humans often confuse with love or 'being good.')

There are more layers.

Some admit this/notice it/face it. Others do not.

[iambiguous]

IC is full of shit when he says all is permissible if there is no God.

Indeed, there are any number of secular Humanists who embrace a more or less objective morality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

If you leave out the "religious variants".

But I share IC's own rooted existentially in dasein assumption that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted".

At least until someone who embraces one of those secular Isms is able to convince me -- philosophically, ideologically, genetically, etc. -- that objective morality is reasonable in a No God world.

Given a particular context, of course.

[iambiguous]

It's not complicated, everyone knows the score: your life, liberty, and property are yours, full stop. The other's guy's life , liberty, and property are his, full stop.

The same [in my view] preposterous argument.

"full stop: used at the end of a sentence, usually when you are angry, to say you will not continue to discuss a subject."

Sure, if we all lived completely apart from others we could sustain our own convictions regarding life, liberty and property full stop.

Or, as well, if henry lived in a community where every single citizen shared his own convictions regarding them: right makes might.

But within many communities in regard to things like gun control and other conflicting goods, you will find some who construe life, liberty and property one way and others who construe them in entirely different ways. As in America, where democracy and the rule of law still prevails.

For now, right Don and Ron?

The only difference between henry and many other gun fanatics is that henry believes the government has no right to prohibit the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction.

[Immanuel Can]

For most ordinary people, the moral issues that arise in their daily lives are usually things like, should I declare all my income to the tax man; is it okay to watch pornography online while the wife is out shopping or is it wrong to eat meat; that sort of stuff,

For you, living in the privileged West. Yes, that might be the limit. But you ain't "ordinary people" on a world scale -- or on a historical one, even prior to the middle of the last century. We are surrounded by what the rest of the world calls "First World Problems," meaning things so trivial the rest of the world cannot even imagine them.

This conflict between Hamas and Israel; what is one of the major and most significant factors that divides them, aside from the minor issue of the Palestinians having their homeland stolen right from under them. Religion is what. And you would fix it all by pouring even more religious crap into the mix, like petrol onto a fire.

Well, if you think "religion" is to blame, it's nothing compared to what Atheist regimes do. And we could even have used the hatred of Marxists, for example, against ALL "religions"...the very sentiment you are oozing at the moment.

But it really doesn't matter the cause, according to subjectivism: so long as there are "emotions" present, we should be able to get some information about what is moral and what is not out of them. Unfortunately for you, they're wildly opposite.

...yes, to me, morality is mostly about the more trivial, mundane things in life, and how I conduct myself in relation to them.

Begging your pardon, but no it's not: it's not less relevant to you who breaks into your house than which TV channel you watch. But even if all you ever have to worry about is the colour of your toenail paint, that is very obviously not how most of the world has lived or is living now.

And we all need some information about morality. So how come subjectivism is giving us none?

But even so: given subjectivism's belief that we can go off emotions, what is the actual moral status of pornography-watching? How do you know?

What social harm does it do? I don't know, so I don't have an opinion.

So subjectivism can't tell us about pornography, you say? (By the way, the "harm" it does is actually immense, if you stop thinking you're the only person in the universe...and I'm pretty sure you can figure out several reasons why. Start with the realization that many of its 'objects' are not doing what they are doing because they want to. Work from there.)

so why do you keep going on about the throats of babies being cut?

Because it's a very clear case that shows how radically different "emotions" can be, even when they refer to a single situation. And it's actually not that far from home, for you: for you have favourable emotions toward butchering babies in utero, and I find it reprehensible. Do you doubt that that is the case?

I don't doubt it in the slightest; the very word, "abortion" gives me a whacking erection.

Let's say that's so. What would make you right/wrong, when other people experience very different emotions in association with it?

Stop dodging the obvious. Emotions are not equal to morality. Neither is subjective preference.

Well if you are going to sell me objective morality, you are going to have to find a way of leaving God out of the deal, so I'll leave it with you.

I can sell you on this -- or at least should be able to do so by now, if you're behaving at all in a rational way -- that subjectivism is definitely not the right answer. It has zero moral information on it, so we can rule it out the most easily of the three options, and we can get on with the others.

[Harbal]

Well if you are going to sell me objective morality, you are going to have to find a way of leaving God out of the deal, so I'll leave it with you.

I can sell you on this -- or at least should be able to do so by now, if you're behaving at all in a rational way -- that subjectivism is definitely not the right answer. It has zero moral information on it, so we can rule it out the most easily of the three options, and we can get on with the others.

Wake me up when you've done with nihilism.

[iambiguous]

Well, if you think "religion" is to blame, it's nothing compared to what Atheist regimes do.

On the other hand, what do the Commies and the National Socialists [among others] all share in common with religion?

Of course: moral and political objectivism.

The end justifies the means.

And then the amoral "what's in it for me?" nihilists who own and operate the global economy. And the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings of this world.

Only the atheists don't promise immortality and salvation for those who act out their own inquisitions and crusades and holy wars.

[Immanuel Can]

Well if you are going to sell me objective morality, you are going to have to find a way of leaving God out of the deal, so I'll leave it with you.

I can sell you on this -- or at least should be able to do so by now, if you're behaving at all in a rational way -- that subjectivism is definitely not the right answer. It has zero moral information on it, so we can rule it out the most easily of the three options, and we can get on with the others.

Wake me up when you've done with nihilism.

We needn't treat it at all, if it isn't an option for you.

So this is what we're left with: either morality is objective, or there's no such thing as morality at all. But we've dispensed with the possibility that it can be "subjective," and you're not entertaining "nihilism" either, so that means that some form of objectivism is the only possible answer.

So far, so good?