Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter. Is there any systematic way for humans to arrive at moral truth that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being?

Kant tried. Mill tried. Aristotle and Aquinas tried. Others have tried. By consensus of serious moral philosophers, including all the secular ones, they've all failed. What do you recommend they try next?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter.

I answered, and very directly, too: I'll shorten it down.

It's been tried, and everybody's failed.

The problem is simply that when you remove God from the equation, there's no longer anything to make the equation "add up" to anything. And all the suggestions people come up with turn out to be both arbitrary and contradicting of each other.

So what Kant says contradicts what Mill says, and what they both say contradicts what Aristotle said, and Nietzsche said we should get rid of it all, and Rorty said we didn't need to think about it...and so on.

Ask anybody who has a basic course in ethics if what I'm telling you is the truth. Everybody knows.

[FlashDangerpants]

Kant tried. Mill tried. Aristotle and Aquinas tried. Others have tried. By consensus of serious moral philosophers, including all the secular ones, they've all failed. What do you recommend they try next?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter.

I answered, and very directly, too: I'll shorten it down.

It's been tried, and everybody's failed.

The problem is simply that when you remove God from the equation, there's no longer anything to make the equation "add up" to anything. And all the suggestions people come up with turn out to be both arbitrary and contradicting of each other.

So what Kant says contradicts what Mill says, and what they both say contradicts what Aristotle said, and Nietzsche said we should get rid of it all, and Rorty said we didn't need to think about it...and so on.

Ask anybody who has a basic course in ethics if what I'm telling you is the truth. Everybody knows.

A list of very well known people who have failed a task is not the same as a reason why they failed.

Is there no way for instance that you and I could access the properties of a situation or event or judgment or whatever that convey the goodness, badness and so on of it unless we have a God as intermediary to tell us about those properties?

[Immanuel Can]

A list of very well known people who have failed a task is not the same as a reason why they failed.

You didn't ask for that. And writing all that would take volumes, so it's not even a reasonable thing to attempt here.

But you can always take a basic course, and they'll explain it, for sure.

[FlashDangerpants]

A list of very well known people who have failed a task is not the same as a reason why they failed.

You didn't ask for that. And writing all that would take volumes, so it's not even a reasonable thing to attempt here.

But you can always take a basic course, and they'll explain it, for sure.

Again. Is there no way for instance that you and I could access the properties of a situation or event or judgment or whatever that convey the goodness, badness and so on of it unless we have a God as intermediary to tell us about those properties? That's one perfectly sensible option for how there could be moral truths of the matter which are inaccessible to humans.

[Peter Holmes]

The problem is simply that when you remove God from the equation, there's no longer anything to make the equation "add up" to anything. And all the suggestions people come up with turn out to be both arbitrary and contradicting of each other.

Which god? My team's god.
Nothing arbitrary there, then.

'My team's god is the source of morality.' 'No, my team's god is the source of morality'.
No contradiction there, then.

Human communities have developed - and are developing - moral values and codes: rational views about moral rightness and wrongness. No need for invented gods, or other arbitrary 'foundations'.

[FlashDangerpants]

So maybe we should be focusing on justifying an objective or subjective moral theory, no?

I don't think there is any point in bothering with a subjective moral theory, because you would only be setting it up to knock it down. Besides, you have already made it abundantly clear what you think of any theory of subjective morality. But, by all means, go ahead with trying to justify an objective theory.

IC doesn't appear to actually have an objective moral theory, or if he does he's far too shy to tell us what it is.

If he had one, he would have been able to tell me why Mills and Kant etc were wrong with their theories. That he can't do this shows that he only has a couple of precepts to work with. One would be something along the lines that there must be moral fact because "subjectivism makes no sense", an argument which, if it were good, still wouldn't fill out any details about what the truth constitutes in. But the entire rest of his argument seems to be that God's word is the only believable conduit we have to moral fact.

Chop out the God stuff just for the sake of argument (as it's clearly debatable) and what's left is Moral Error Theory.

[Harbal]

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And human beings are rational creatures; it is contrary to our nature not to ask why and how. That is what has taken us from the cave to the Moon. That is what we do.

Great. Then explain how rationality can inform us about morality.

We need principles on which the morality is founded, so that we can test any particular instance against them. Otherwise, it's just rules. Although morality is not based on logic and rationality, it should still be logically consistent with the principles on which it is founded, even if those principles are arbitrary.

I think it is unrealistic to expect people to blindly obey rules without being given a reason for them.

Well, we are given the reason. It's just that maybe it's not the reason you wanted to hear. It's because obeying the moral rules makes us more fit and more intelligent for relationship with God, which is our ultimate good.

I wasn't really sure if I was still supposed to be hypothetically believing in God. I don't really want a relationship with God, because the picture you paint of him does not give me the impression we would see eye to eye on a lot of things. I'm not a particularly social person, but I prefer the relationships I do have to be with other human beings, although I have been considering getting a dog. Not a god.

If you've got a better "reason," then I'm all ears.

To make us more fit for our relationships with other people, and the relationship we have with ourselves?

How do we know there is a God at all?

Because we all do. He's revealed his existence to us. (Romans 1)

No, he hasn't revealed his existence to me, nor most of the others on this forum, it seems. Maybe it's because I haven't searched for him with all my heart and all my soul, but there must be a reason why he makes himself so hard to be found, so maybe the decent to do would be to respect his privacy.

But the Bible doesn't tell us what we need to know,

Actually, it does. But what you need to know and what you might want to know are sometimes two different things.

So are what I need to know and what you want me to know.

I don't know what you mean.

Well, is incest your current issue? It's not mine,

Actually, it is yours. I suggested abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment; it was you who went for incest.

I have to say. Its utility as a discussion topic is that it's one of the few truly universal taboos human beings have, so I thought you might be prepared to accept is as a fundamental evil. But if not, then its utility is gone, and we can move on.

I don't recognise the concept of evil, so that might be getting in the way. Even on matters where I might have a strong view or opinion, I very rarely see anything purely in black and white.

Is there anything you regard categorically as evil or wrong? Or anything as categorically good?

I regard putting the demands of a supposed higher being before the interests of other members of my own species as wrong, if that will do.

I think you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat quite quickly, before we are both condemned to a life of nihilism.

[Immanuel Can]

A list of very well known people who have failed a task is not the same as a reason why they failed.

You didn't ask for that. And writing all that would take volumes, so it's not even a reasonable thing to attempt here.

But you can always take a basic course, and they'll explain it, for sure.

Again. Is there no way for instance that you and I could access the properties of a situation or event or judgment or whatever that convey the goodness, badness and so on of it unless we have a God as intermediary to tell us about those properties? That's one perfectly sensible option for how there could be moral truths of the matter which are inaccessible to humans.

We're clearly missing each other here. I've answered your question.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is simply that when you remove God from the equation, there's no longer anything to make the equation "add up" to anything. And all the suggestions people come up with turn out to be both arbitrary and contradicting of each other.

Which god?

The only God there is.

Human communities have developed - and are developing - moral values and codes.

These often wildly contradict each other. If you think they don't, then ask Gaza right now.

Since none is more authoritative or real than any other, how do you know you shouldn't be killing either Jews or terrorists right now?

[Immanuel Can]

And human beings are rational creatures; it is contrary to our nature not to ask why and how. That is what has taken us from the cave to the Moon. That is what we do.

Great. Then explain how rationality can inform us about morality.

We need principles on which the morality is founded, so that we can test any particular instance against them.

Okay. What's one of these "principles"?

If you've got a better "reason," then I'm all ears.

To make us more fit for our relationships with other people, and the relationship we have with ourselves?

Except it doesn't. The difference in our values make us often do things like killing our babies, or killing our elderly, or killing the mentally ill, or killing other nations, or poisoning and slicing our bodies to pieces in order to become what we are told we "really" are, and so on.

How do we know there is a God at all?

Because we all do. He's revealed his existence to us. (Romans 1)

No, he hasn't revealed his existence to me, nor most of the others on this forum, it seems.

It depends whom you believe.

I don't at all think it's true that the people here do not know there's a God. I think the people here often say they wish they could eliminate God. Those are not at all the same propositions.

I don't know what you mean.

Well, is incest your current issue? It's not mine,

Actually, it is yours.

Oh, sorry...I should have been clearer.

I was asking if you personally felt you needed an answer to the incest issue, since I do not. I had raised it only in an effort to find common ground with you, but if you don't feel a prohibition toward that particular action, then it wasn't useful for anything further, and I was suggesting we move on.

I suggested abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment;

All possible picks, but not as universal as incest, and inconveniently, not issues on which we might automatically expect to begin from agreeing. But thanks anyway.

I very rarely see anything purely in black and white.

Is that a good thing?

I don't mean to say there's no time for greyness in issues, but if we are achieving any moral clarity, isn't the point to know the actual rightness and wrongness of things, rather than always to be caught in a grey muddle in the grey middle?

Is there anything you regard categorically as evil or wrong? Or anything as categorically good?

I regard putting the demands of a supposed higher being before the interests of other members of my own species as wrong, if that will do.

What would make that objectively wrong?

I think you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat quite quickly, before we are both condemned to a life of nihilism.

Well, I'm not a nihilist, of course. But what I can do is show you the path that so naturally leads from subjectivism to nihlism. That much is actually rather easy. And I'm not at all confident that if you are a rational person, and if you see the reasoning, you might not end up there. Because if I were a moral subjectivist, I think it would be obvious to me that we have to do away with empty gestures and vaccuous language about my personal wants being somehow "moral" without me being even able to say what that was, and that moral nihilism would be the obvious next landing point...unless I were prepared to reconsider my basic assumptions about God.

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't ask for that. And writing all that would take volumes, so it's not even a reasonable thing to attempt here.

But you can always take a basic course, and they'll explain it, for sure.

Again. Is there no way for instance that you and I could access the properties of a situation or event or judgment or whatever that convey the goodness, badness and so on of it unless we have a God as intermediary to tell us about those properties? That's one perfectly sensible option for how there could be moral truths of the matter which are inaccessible to humans.

We're clearly missing each other here. I've answered your question.

Really I am only asking for a brief explanation of what, if you have any theory about this matter at all, makes moral fact inaccessible to human enquiry without the intervention of a divinity? You've already said that it is needed, in two different ways. I'm asking why?

What is it about the nature of moral properties that makes them visible to God but not to man?

[iambiguous]

...but if it saves lives to lie, it's ok.

Says who? Ask the religious fanatics in Israel and the Gaza Strip if it's okay -- moral -- to save the lives of the infidels. Ask the Nazis if it is okay to save the lives of Jews.

Different contexts, different moral assessment of lies.

Even Kant recognized that for mere mortals, moral obligations eventually come down to there being a God. A "transcending" entity able to provide the "final answer".

[iambiguous]

...why is "damaging" or "hurting" people really wrong? In fact, don't the terms "damage" and "abuse" imply already that you're placing a moral condemnation on those actions? Why call something "damage" or "abuse," unless we all already know that they are bad things? But how do we know?

Indeed, that is precisely why Mr. Cant embraces the Christian God here. He recognizes that moral relativism or moral nihilism or Nietzsche's perspectivism or situational ethics or you're right from your side and I'm right from mine are really just different renditions of "in the absence of God, all things are permitted".

He's right in my view. The existence of God is essential here. At least until philosophers or scientists or political ideologues or the biological imperative folks are able to all concur regarding a basis for objective morality in a No God world.

Instead, what he steers clear of is in acknowledging how all of the other God world folks insist that it is their own God or their own spiritual path that saves souls. He's just another infidel to them.

When confronted with that, however, he sort of just mumbles something to the effect that because they are all wrong then Christianity must be right. Logic let's call it.

[Immanuel Can]

Really I am only asking for a brief explanation of what, if you have any theory about this matter at all, makes moral fact inaccessible to human enquiry without the intervention of a divinity? You've already said that it is needed, in two different ways. I'm asking why?

What is it about the nature of moral properties that makes them visible to God but not to man?

To your first question, I've answered it multiple times. The grounds of morality is God. If you exclude God from your consideration, you've lost any chance of basing your morality on any facts, or any objectivity. You can only make up arbitrary "moralities," that nobody has any obligation to take seriously, because they depend on nothing but power; and power can be fooled or subverted. God cannot.

To your second, moral properties ARE visible to man; but man is not clear-eyed about them. His vision is present but blurry on moral questions, and his will is ungodly, so he tends to both desire and excuse a great many things that are immoral. He often knows what he should not do, but he does it anyway. Look at Gaza.

[Immanuel Can]

Instead, what he steers clear of is in acknowledging how all of the other God world folks insist that it is their own God or their own spiritual path that saves souls. He's just another infidel to them.

That's manifestly untrue. Far from "steering clear" of it, I've addressed it with you multiple times, but can't seem to make the point simple enough for you to absorb:

It's very simple: any number of wrong answers, held by any number of wrong-thinking people, would not tell us that there was no right answer.

I'm just astounded that that simple realization, such common sense, is completely beyond you.