Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

I'm basically in entertainment mode.

Ah, I see. I'm no longer to be applauded...

But at least he does bring his "ethical theory" down out of the intellectual clouds.

Okay. Have fun.

Note to others:

Enough said?

[henry quirk]

Enough said?

By me: yes.

You? I imagine you have hundreds of pages of posting next to nuthin' ahead of you.

As I say: have fun.

[Immanuel Can]

the Monotheistic claim is that God can and does involve Himself periodically in human affairs, and continues to do so. But either way, that's not a "test." It's just a confession that you personally don't know of any such evidence.

...a claim is not a fact.

It can be, if the claim is true. That's the matter to be settled.

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

If, for example, Israel says they escaped through the Red Sea by way of a miraculous intervention from God, which they do, in fact, say, by what test did you prove them liars?

Not in the least do I think they're liars. Like all the ancients, they just mythologized

That's just a nice way of saying "lied."

Interesting that the nation exists. It seems that much of the world wants it not to. But watch: you're going to see that they cannot stop it existing, not if all of Iran, Russia and China conspired to make it so, along with every anti-semite in the Western world. But again, all this has been prophesied. You just have to have read it to know that.

If you don't know it by now, though, you will certainly find it out.

In any event, there exists no direct evidence of any kind it being true.

Well, except the continued existence of Israel. But you'll just suppose that's a coincidence, of course.

[iambiguous]

Enough said?

By me: yes.

You? I imagine you have hundreds of pages of posting next to nuthin' ahead of you.

As I say: have fun.

That's entertainment!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

Many more points occur... In no particular order:

1. It is particularly bizarre to witness you of all people accusing Prof. Blackburn and most other scholars, of projecting an absurd argument onto Kant. You still believe Boyd wrote an essay about me and Pete and Sculptor being moral antirealists because we lack cognitive function. That's the dumbest bullshit misreading ever, and you have stuck to it for years after "at least 20" reads of the source. So until you rectify that failure of yours, you can reel your neck in.

This is a strawman re Blackburn.
What Boyd implied is you, Pete and Sculptor as anti-moral_realists lack the moral cognition specifically within the sense of perceptual cognitive ability. I did not assert that you, Pete and Sculptor lack a cognitive function is other areas.
In contrast, people like Henry has high moral cognitive abilities thus his intuitive sense that there are objective moral facts.

2. Korsgaard doesn't argue what you think, and if you had read her instead of learning about her from a hurried review of a wikipedia page about the pamphlet in question, you would know not to invoke her for this purpose. She is a neo-Kantian constructivist, she takes Kant's basic premises in the critiques and then re-applies them rather than arguing hermeneutics about Kant's particular intent. That's why she is famous for using Kantian principles to argue for animal rights, something Kant himself very definitely doesn't argue for.

3. Here's Johannes A. Niederhauser of Birkbeck College giving quite a scorching riposte to the Skorsgaard essay you linked, at one point he really loses his shit tbh. Truth be told you would likely prefer Niederhauser to Skorsgaard as he is very much arguing on behalf of Kant in the original form, not some modernised new version of him.

4. However, this all comes at a price for you. To horribly simplify, the way out of the issue for Kant is that he is talking about a different type of lie (he compares ethical and judicial lies in the gwk) and that the act of misleading in the murderer at the door counts as one but not really the other. Niederhauser does have an interesting extra bit that I had never heard of before to explain the sudden lurch into consequentialism that Kant did in that essay. I won't ruin it for you.

I wrote above:

"Many notable Kantians had countered the misrepresentations, e.g. Allen Wood, Korsgaard and others."

I gave a few examples.
I am aware Korsgaard's version was subjected to criticism by others.

But the main point is this;
you brought up Kant's "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives" [SRL] to critique Kant's Ethics.
My point is, you are wrong because that is out of context because Kant's SRL was in the juridical context and not in the Ethical Contexts.
For Kant, Ethics is independent of politics [legislation and the judiciary].

5. Blackburn knows all about the judicial/ethical thing, and as does Korsgaard, in both cases it isn't very important to the case they are presenting though. Niederhauser shows why Kant doesn't need to alter his imperative and rules based approach to deal with the murderer at the door. Blackburn is showing how the basic reasoning that attaches rightness and wrongness to actions works under differing moral schemas and thus simply doesn't need to address the two types of lying one of which is a duty and the other a wrong under that circumstance. And skorsgaard.... well maybe her essay is a bit bullshitty, but normally she's got her own thing going and it works fairly well.

6. I don't need you to offer a quote for Kant telling us that all interest is ultimately practical and even that of speculative reason is only conditional and is complete in practical use alone. Everyone knows it already. The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.

None of this really changes anything. Kant did write that to lie would not be justified even to save a life, and he meant it. He just differentiates between two types of lie and applies different imperatigves and reason to them.
So Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus. As if that was ever in doubt.

Yes, "Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus" [he implied in the absolutist sense],
but he was wrong in stating that Kant's Ethics belong to the above sort of absolute deontology, as in the Abrahamic religions, judiciary, with examples like you did, linked to the "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives".

The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.

Why?
What do you mean by your sense of 'moral motivation' and how Kant is known for it?
I am very interested to know your point of view on why.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That Henry believes 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human.

No, all that is wrong.

A person, any person, every person, any where or when, knows his life, liberty, and property are his alone. He isn't taught this. He knows he is his own. He may never codify this intuition as I have, or codify it all and he doesn't have to (unless he's fartin' around in a philosophy forum).

And becuz he knows he is his own, he knows it's wrong he should be used as a commodity. And if it's wrong he should be used, it's wrong he should use the other guy.

It's not about feelings or culture or society or religion or law or education.

The well-treated slave is still a slave, knows he is being used, and bridles at it (even if only in the privacy of his own thoughts). Should he recognize an opportunity to be free of the leash, he'll take it.

Wrong??
Your use of 'know' is somehow odd.

Note this;

• Meaning of intuition in English. (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts: Often there's no clear evidence one way or the other and you just have to base your judgment on intuition.
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /intuition

From the above one either know based on feelings or on facts.

If you state that everyone, you and the slave knows 'slavery is not permissible ethically' not based on feelings,
then, you mean they know it based on facts???

Knowing from intuition is based on feelings albeit 'strong' subliminal feelings not on obvious feelings like feeling something painful or strong emotions.

Note this 3rd meaning of 'feel'.

feel = have a belief or impression, especially without an identifiable reason.

Thus my point;
"That Henry believes [knows] 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human."
is not wrong but definitely appropriate.

Your 'know' is a case of knowing by feelings or intuitions, not knowing by objective facts.

[Dontaskme]

*Facepalm*.

Do you understand the word "omniscience"? It's one of the attributes of God.

So again, what empirical evidence does an all knowing God test his moral theory against?

Ugh.

God doesn't "test" anything. God knows everything (ominiscience). There's no "theory" he has to hold, only knowledge, and no "test," only certainty.

How simple do I have to make this?

Just saying God does not ''test'' any-thing...as in a concept that is known to him, just doesn't make any sense. He would have had to have tested a concept known to him..for example: the concept of 'morality' couldn't possibly have meant diddly squat to God, unless he had tested it against what ''morality'' IS NOT... which would have been 'immorality' ..He would have had to experience an immoral action to have been certain what ''morality'' meant.

He couldn't have just KNOWN the word 'moralities' absolute meaning without first testing it against what 'morality' is not. Otherwise the word 'morality' would have been a totally meaningless concept to him.

So as usual IC, you are not making much sense.

[FlashDangerpants]

....

Many more points occur... In no particular order:

1. It is particularly bizarre to witness you of all people accusing Prof. Blackburn and most other scholars, of projecting an absurd argument onto Kant. You still believe Boyd wrote an essay about me and Pete and Sculptor being moral antirealists because we lack cognitive function. That's the dumbest bullshit misreading ever, and you have stuck to it for years after "at least 20" reads of the source. So until you rectify that failure of yours, you can reel your neck in.

This is a strawman re Blackburn.
What Boyd implied is you, Pete and Sculptor as anti-moral_realists lack the moral cognition specifically within the sense of perceptual cognitive ability. I did not assert that you, Pete and Sculptor lack a cognitive function is other areas.
In contrast, people like Henry has high moral cognitive abilities thus his intuitive sense that there are objective moral facts.

You idiot. Of course he didn't make that argument, you read the apper 20 times and you failed to get the point even once, and now you still don't get it.

2. Korsgaard doesn't argue what you think, and if you had read her instead of learning about her from a hurried review of a wikipedia page about the pamphlet in question, you would know not to invoke her for this purpose. She is a neo-Kantian constructivist, she takes Kant's basic premises in the critiques and then re-applies them rather than arguing hermeneutics about Kant's particular intent. That's why she is famous for using Kantian principles to argue for animal rights, something Kant himself very definitely doesn't argue for.

3. Here's Johannes A. Niederhauser of Birkbeck College giving quite a scorching riposte to the Skorsgaard essay you linked, at one point he really loses his shit tbh. Truth be told you would likely prefer Niederhauser to Skorsgaard as he is very much arguing on behalf of Kant in the original form, not some modernised new version of him.

4. However, this all comes at a price for you. To horribly simplify, the way out of the issue for Kant is that he is talking about a different type of lie (he compares ethical and judicial lies in the gwk) and that the act of misleading in the murderer at the door counts as one but not really the other. Niederhauser does have an interesting extra bit that I had never heard of before to explain the sudden lurch into consequentialism that Kant did in that essay. I won't ruin it for you.

I wrote above:

"Many notable Kantians had countered the misrepresentations, e.g. Allen Wood, Korsgaard and others."

I gave a few examples.
I am aware Korsgaard's version was subjected to criticism by others.

But the main point is this;
you brought up Kant's "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives" [SRL] to critique Kant's Ethics.
My point is, you are wrong because that is out of context because Kant's SRL was in the juridical context and not in the Ethical Contexts.
For Kant, Ethics is independent of politics [legislation and the judiciary].

Yeah so.... that means that Kant would argue that you must not tell an ethical lie even to save a life... which is what he does say in that pamphlet, which is where Blackburn got the claim.... that was correct. Blackburn isn't wrong about deontology or Kant.

5. Blackburn knows all about the judicial/ethical thing, and as does Korsgaard, in both cases it isn't very important to the case they are presenting though. Niederhauser shows why Kant doesn't need to alter his imperative and rules based approach to deal with the murderer at the door. Blackburn is showing how the basic reasoning that attaches rightness and wrongness to actions works under differing moral schemas and thus simply doesn't need to address the two types of lying one of which is a duty and the other a wrong under that circumstance. And skorsgaard.... well maybe her essay is a bit bullshitty, but normally she's got her own thing going and it works fairly well.

6. I don't need you to offer a quote for Kant telling us that all interest is ultimately practical and even that of speculative reason is only conditional and is complete in practical use alone. Everyone knows it already. The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.

None of this really changes anything. Kant did write that to lie would not be justified even to save a life, and he meant it. He just differentiates between two types of lie and applies different imperatigves and reason to them.
So Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus. As if that was ever in doubt.

Yes, "Blackburn wasn't wrong, either about where deontology touches ground or about its obligations and duties focus" [he implied in the absolutist sense],
but he was wrong in stating that Kant's Ethics belong to the above sort of absolute deontology, as in the Abrahamic religions, judiciary, with examples like you did, linked to the "On the Supposed Right to Lie From Benevolent Motives".

Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school. You are off on some adventure now about absolutism, but you are throwing that charge around without giving any real reason. I don't see evidence that Blackburn is making such a claim, but nor do I see evidence he's wrong to.

The point you don't seem to get is that this is why Kant is known to be weak on the subject of moral motivation.

Why?
What do you mean by your sense of 'moral motivation' and how Kant is known for it?
I am very interested to know your point of view on why.

I feel like I've written it a bunch of times for you. Our real morals (not this fake shit you are flogging under the absurd branding of morality-proper) have explanatory power in the causal realm and any accurate description of them needs to cover that. That's something real philosophers take care to do in this matter and you don't get it because your philosophical thing is just an ad hoc dump of nonsense that will never go anywhere.

But beyond that, it's covered here
viewtopic.php?t=41026

[Skepdick]

He couldn't have just KNOWN the word 'moralities' absolute meaning without first testing it against what 'morality' is not. Otherwise the word 'morality' would have been a totally meaningless concept to him.

So as usual IC, you are not making much sense.

How do you know the absolute meaning of the word "sense" without first testing it against "sense" is not. Otherwise the word "sense" is totaly meaningless concept to you.

[Skepdick]

Kant would argue that you must not tell an ethical lie even to save a life...

Kant's ethics does belong to the deontological school.

Is that true? Can you show us your classifier?

Kant can't even define "lying" without consequentialism. Without accounting for the effect my words have on your mind.

This bus is green.

[Dontaskme]

He couldn't have just KNOWN the word 'moralities' absolute meaning without first testing it against what 'morality' is not. Otherwise the word 'morality' would have been a totally meaningless concept to him.

So as usual IC, you are not making much sense.

How do you know the absolute meaning of the word "sense" without first testing it against "sense" is not. Otherwise the word "sense" is totaly meaningless concept to you.

You are the knowing that cannot be known. Don't make sense, without knowing what sense is not.

[Skepdick]

Our real morals have explanatory power in the causal realm and any accurate description of them needs to cover that.

Holy fuck! I've never read so many misconceptions in one sentence.

Morals have explanatory AND causal power?

What should an "accurate description" of our morals be explaining exactly?

[Dontaskme]

God is the ineffable, which is the very definition of 'Nuff said.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The Way is to man as rivers and lakes are to fish,
the natural condition of life. with apologies to venerable and wizened old sages everywhere

Then we'd better quick sharp, discard to the trash-bin every conceiveable ''Bible Book'' inseparable from it's stories that were ever told.

The ineffable is not to be KNOWN. Is not to be heard, is not to be told, is not to be repeated...blah blah blah... Problem solved.

Save you're condescending 'venerables' for the 'Walkers' of the world. A.K.A. (The Walking Dead. )welcome to the Zombie Jamboree, where the lights are on but there's no one home. Where what you are reading and what you are being told is nothing but a useless pile of repeated fairy stories, pure fallacy, false belief, folklore, myth and legend. In others words, an absolute crock of lying junk we all feast upon in order to make sense of the senselessness of our lives.

[Dontaskme]

I can't see anything even remotely sophisticated, or even sensible, in DAM's question. If you think it has some profundity I'm missing, then perhaps you can explain that profundity.

Dam asked a reasonable question...

Great. I'm sure you can explain it to me, then.

How can she suppose that God, if He does exist (shall we say, for argument's sake) would "test theories against" anything? People "test theories" when they don't know stuff. And they "test" them against reality. But reality is grounded (by definition) in the Creator Himself -- nothing pre-exists Him, and He made it what it is.

So how is her question even remotely sensible?

Maybe you can save her line of argument for her. By even the most generous principle-of-charity, I cannot. It looks like she doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "God."

But we are talking about God not people.

People test theories, yes.

And you are a person right? you are conscious you are a person right? ...but do you have knowledge of anything existing outside of you're own awareness? all you can know is what you know within you're own awareness, you are not aware of anything else happening outside of that personal arena.....and even when you do obtain new knowledge of something happening outside of you're immediate awareness it's because of something you've read about or seen on a video.....it won't be you're actual reality.....


And so even what you read about or see on a video is happening only because you are able to consciously process the information in you're own self, ...that processing is not coming from some other external place other than you're own awareness here.


So if like you say, you have knowledge of an all knowing God, then that knowledge can only be within you're own awareness, and not something that exists outside of you.

You the person are talking about an all knowing God, which can only be an idea in you're own awareness, not outside of it.


If you insist, which you seem to want to do, that there is this all knowing entity who goes by the name of God, that exists outside of you're own human awareness, who knows absolutely everything without ever testing it against something else relative to it in order to give it any meaning....If that other entity exists for certain, then the only way you would know that would be for you to leave you're own human awareness and peek around outside it until you make contact with the all knowing God you think exists separate from you... which is impossible, just as it is impossible for you to jump over you're own shadow in order to get in front of yourself....and to be able to turn back and look at yourself and say...hey look there are two of me...there's me here, and there's me there.

Can you see how absurd this is?

I can't believe I am having to explain this to you, I would have thought it would be obvious to you by now IC


And another thing....when you claim God is the creator of everything, then God must have created himself in order to have known he is a creator. But that's not correct is it... the Christian God is uncreated. Romans 1:18-22

More nonsense to follow....

[Dontaskme]

You are talking about KNOWLEDGE ..IC


Knowledge informs the formless, apparently giving the formless form, albeit illusory, since knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, in that reality is without begining or end...there is nothing but reality alone, all one, not two.

(beginnings and endings) only happen in the dream, the artificial dream of separation where there is none. In truth, how can that which is beginningless and endless have a beginning or an end, except in this conception, in the actual word itself, the known concept in this conception.... The word that no 'word' ever wrote, or read, or lived...because WORDS that are known, know nothing...you are this knowing that cannot be known.

I do not think you understand the no difference between the living and the dead...there is no distinction here, except as and through the WORD in it's conception by association with the words meaning, that no word in and of itself can conceive of, except as belief, except as imagined.

Truth does not set you free, because you've never been bound, you've always been free, that's the meaning of unconditional love. And that's all there is unconditionally, because there is no other to place conditions upon, or contest or object to unconditional love.

When you are talking about knowledge IC...you are talking about the dream, and nothing ever happens in a dream, a dream only happens apparently. Where was the dream you had last night? where did it happen?