Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Still waiting IC

Keep waiting.

All talk and no action IC

No interest.

[Gary Childress]

You can be sure of the opposite.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

And I thought "liberals" were "snowflakes" who didn't like "free speech".

You HAVE free speech, Gary. The fact that you could talk like you do, unimpeded, shows you do.

Then so do racists and bigots and people who POSE as "Christians" when they don't follow the tenets of their own religion, oh arogant, pridefull, judgmental IC. Don't give me any more shit about "conservatives" not having "free speech." And if you think Christianity is the last word on everything, then try to at least act like one.

But what nobody gets is consequence-free speech. Being an adult means taking the consequences for what you commit yourself to. This is the ultimate of such cases. So say what you want, but know that you'll take responsibility for it. Nobody else will.

I agree, now act like an adult yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

And I thought "liberals" were "snowflakes" who didn't like "free speech".

You HAVE free speech, Gary. The fact that you could talk like you do, unimpeded, shows you do.

Then so do racists...

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

[Atla]

Subjectivism makes it necessary for us to believe that, whether you say it or not.

No, it doesn't make it necessary at all.

But you said that morality IS raw power. And that would mean that if you want people to be "moral," then you expect them to resort to nothing more than raw power.

But I'm sure you misspoke on that, so you're free to retract if you want. No hard feelings.

Nowhere did I say that morality IS raw power.

If the variables in the universe are infinite -- which, in an infinite universe, they have to be, by definition of "infinite" -- then any particular outcome remains infinitely improbable, for an infinite duration of time.

Which means the "infinite universes" explanation (in addition to its problem of being unscientific because definitionally unempirical) fails to explain why anything exists.

That is, unless there is some inexplicable "limiting factor" to the number of possible outcomes...which would be... what?

There is no reason to think that existence has to have a why. Maybe existence just is.
Nor do we necessarily need a limiting factor. But what all that doesn't explain is why we're stuck with this particular outcome.

Well, there are only two options: something can be random, or something can be purposeful /intentional / designed instead. So it's pretty clear that if Atheism of any kind is true, then all explanations that involve Somebody installing or designing some purpose for the universe have to be ruled out from the get-go.

So Atheists have to believe the universe is a product of randomness. If they don't, then they have no option but to return to some "design" explanation, which would implicate God again. And they don't want to do that, obviously.

See above, order could exist without a creator, for example the order of infinite universes.

Au contraire: if I may give you a lead on that, you need to understand the Kalaam Cosmological argument to see why the opposite is true; but I'll have to let you research that yourself, because it's too much to go over here.

Suffice it to say, we know for certain, mathematically and empirically, that there's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. So there has to be an original cause, which must, unavoidably, be uncaused. That's the short version, but it's a very powerful and complex argument, so to understand it and respond to it, you'll need to do your own investigation.

Sorry. Not intending to give you 'homework' here, but there are some answers so profound that nothing less will do them justice. And we are asking, "Where did the universe begin," so we've pretty much committed ourselves to needing a sophisticated answer, haven't we?

The Kalaam cosmological argument rests on the childish assumption of linear time instead of closed loop time. That's where you get the notion of a first cause.

[Gary Childress]

You HAVE free speech, Gary. The fact that you could talk like you do, unimpeded, shows you do.

Then so do racists...

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

And you'll answer for YOU, IC. Don't think you're significantly better than me just because the word "Jesus" comes out of your mouth once in a while. I'm tired of being judged by "Christians". I'm liberal and believe socialism is necessary to an appropriate degree. AND I'm NOT "genocidal."

[Dontaskme]

Keep waiting.

All talk and no action IC

No interest.

No Evidence.

No God.

[Harbal]

You HAVE free speech, Gary. The fact that you could talk like you do, unimpeded, shows you do.

Then so do racists...

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

It's a compelling thought, isn't it? that justice will always prevail in the end. That the Hitlers and Stalins of this world might ultimately get away with it is just too unbearable for the human mind to accept.

[Lacewing]

I agree that random chance/accident is probably nonsense. But you see, the worst resolution of the issue is the idea of God, because a God who could create our universe is even far more improbable.

So of course 'neither accident, nor God' is one of the first steps towards real philosophy...

Well said!

Random chance and accidents are only perceived as such by humans because they don't recognize many 'orderly' and natural influencing factors at work. The idea of a God as a single entity creator and authority focused uniquely on human creation for specific purposes on some kind of linear timeline is a simple and narrow human model -- and that's because we can't wrap our heads around all of the vastness in motion.

But lacking the capability to know with certainty beyond our limitations is no reason to make up stuff to become entrenched in (dead, self-serving philosophy).

Living philosophy should challenge the narrowness of 'known' thinking and strive to consider potential beyond that. We exist in a Universe of constant change, which has levels and elements that we (as humans) cannot easily explain or perceive or fathom, but facets of these 'unknowns' are revealed none-the-less in many ways continually. The practice of living philosophy could acknowledge them and consider the implications.

[Immanuel Can]

Nowhere did I say that morality IS raw power.

Okay. But then you have to have some basis of enforcing any "morality," whether it's objective or subjective you have in view. Because morality tells people what to do -- especially when they don't want to do it, or have incentives for wanting to behave contrary to morality.

To test this, consider why we have a law like: stealing is wrong. Why would we have such a law, if stealing were not at least sometimes appealing to people? If they had no such temptation or incentive to steal, we would not need any such moral instruction at all. It would be as stupid as a law that said, "Do not eat tungsten for breakfast." Everybody would simply wonder why on earth that precept had even been thought of...and it would likely never be useful for anything. But morality (both objective and subjective) has the goal of giving at least one person (even though only one, in the case of subjectivism) moral guidance as to what is the "right" thing to do in a particular situation, in which his desires and inclinations are at least somewhat prompted to do the wrong thing.

So far, so good?

If you are an objectivist, you can have a range of tools to convince people. Certainly, some objectivists resort to using nothing but power. But if they do, then we have to wonder why it even matters where their "morality" view comes from, since power has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. Other objectivists, like Locke or myself, would use persuasion, reason and logic to convince people to comply freely with objective morality, for their own good and for the good of their society. That's less swift than using power, but ultimately much more durable and effective, since it makes people convinced inwardly, not just compliant outwardly. And when power fails or lapses, persuasion remains.

But if you're a subjectivist, what have you got? By definition, you can't convince people by logic, evidence or proofs, since those depend on objective realities. And as a subjectivists, you have to believe that the only "rightness" behind your moral advice or 'law' is the emotional and predispositional sympathy of the listener, if he/she happens to have any. But ultimately, they have no duty whatsoever to care what you think; and if they think otherwise, they can do what they want, and a subjectivist has to accept that as every bit as valid, appropriate and moral as his own choice. And if (since morality instructs us what to do when our desires or incentives are contrary to the right thing) it is certain that many will prefer their own interests and desires to anything somebody else can subjectively offer.

That means subjectivism has to use raw power, or it is powerless. If it does not, it collapses into nihilism, solipsism or even unrestrained wickedness. Moreover it cannot ground a polity, cannot inform a law code or justice system, cannot instruct a people or nation what is worth corporately pursuing or eschewing as a goal...it cannot inform, in other words.

There could not be a more useless version of "morality," then. Even nihilism has one sort of virtue: predictability, reliability. Subjectivism, it seems, has none.

That's why it has to lapse into using raw power, or it just disappears.

If the variables in the universe are infinite -- which, in an infinite universe, they have to be, by definition of "infinite" -- then any particular outcome remains infinitely improbable, for an infinite duration of time.

Which means the "infinite universes" explanation (in addition to its problem of being unscientific because definitionally unempirical) fails to explain why anything exists.

That is, unless there is some inexplicable "limiting factor" to the number of possible outcomes...which would be... what?

There is no reason to think that existence has to have a why. Maybe existence just is.

Then it's meaningless and accidental, just as the Atheists think. And any delusion we have that it HAS a meaning is merely that: a delusion to comfort us, whereas there is no justification for us to believe it in reality.

Nor do we necessarily need a limiting factor.

Not "we." It's not we who need a limiting factor. What needs a limiting factor is the number of possibilities within the infinite universes. If the number of possibilities in it is truly infinite, then any amount of time or recursions does not make any one outcome any more probable. The odds always stay infinitely against any outcome at all.

But what all that doesn't explain is why we're stuck with this particular outcome.

That's because the infinite universe hypothesis is a total fraud. It's designed to give unthinking persons of limited mathematical discernment the feeling that an answer has been offered, while not revealing to them that the answer doesn't actually "answer" anything at all.

The Kalaam cosmological argument rests on the childish assumption of linear time instead of closed loop time.

"Childish"? And against that, you want to offer "infinite regress" or "reincarnation"? But it's really linear causality that's the problem. It's the realization that everything that has a beginning has a cause, and that causes proceed in linear fashion, just as all science assumes. So if you want to contradict the Kalaam, you first have to stop believing in linear causality...and science. And observation. And mathematics. And reality as we know it.

Is that a price you wish to pay?

[Immanuel Can]

Then so do racists...

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

Don't think you're significantly better than me...

I didn't. Not at all.

We all have to give our answers. It's just a very good idea to know that before you have to do it.

[Immanuel Can]

No God.

No point.

[Immanuel Can]

Then so do racists...

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

It's a compelling thought, isn't it? that justice will always prevail in the end. That the Hitlers and Stalins of this world might ultimately get away with it is just too unbearable for the human mind to accept.

Well, maybe the humans that have that intuition -- that justice must be served -- are not imagining things. And it seems to be an awfully general human intuition. But then, there's what God says about that...

[Harbal]

They'll answer for them. You'll answer for you.

It's a compelling thought, isn't it? that justice will always prevail in the end. That the Hitlers and Stalins of this world might ultimately get away with it is just too unbearable for the human mind to accept.

Well, maybe the humans that have that intuition -- that justice must be served -- are not imagining things. And it seems to be an awfully general human intuition. But then, there's what God says about that...

Which version of God, and whose version of what God has to say?

[Harbal]

All talk and no action IC

No interest.

No Evidence.

No God.

May I suggest you break the news to him a little more gently?

[Immanuel Can]

It's a compelling thought, isn't it? that justice will always prevail in the end. That the Hitlers and Stalins of this world might ultimately get away with it is just too unbearable for the human mind to accept.

Well, maybe the humans that have that intuition -- that justice must be served -- are not imagining things. And it seems to be an awfully general human intuition. But then, there's what God says about that...

Which version of God, and whose version of what God has to say?

The one that exists. The rest, you can forget about.