What could make morality objective?

[iambiguous]

...it is precisely in regard to "for all practical purposes" human interactions that I aim to explore dasein in regard to objective morality.

Sorry to intrude - but I've been trying to follow your thinking. And sorry if I've missed it - but can you explain how rooting everything in dasein affects any conclusions you or we can reach about the possibility of objective morality - the existence of moral facts? No worries if you're bored doing this - and sorry, again.

Start with the OPs here:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

They encompass the "for all practical purposes" parameters of dasein [for me] in the is/ought world of conflicting value judgments.

It's an objective fact that some women choose abortion. Is it an objective fact, as well, that choosing abortion is immoral? Also, from conception to birth, when in fact, objectively, do the unborn become actual human beings?

And then given an issue like abortion, note how my frame of mind "here and now" is not applicable to your own value judgments.

So, what could make morality objective?

Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God. Why? Because God is generally thought to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Also, He brings it all down to Judgment Day where the fate of our very soul is decided for all the rest of eternity.

This I don't understand. Why would there being an omni maker of everything, with a plan and purpose for everything, who'll judge us according to whether we follow the plan, mean that there are moral facts?

Well, let's put it this way...

With IC's Christian God, there is a Scripture filled with moral Commandments. There is a Judgment Day. You are ever and always prompted to ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?" given any particular set of circumstances.

If you do what you are convinced He would do chances are you go up. And, if not, down. Depending on the number of transgressions and how consequential they are.

Then all of the denominational squabbles over what exactly that entails.

Then the part where the God of Abraham above is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. And that would seem crucial in differentiating good from evil.

Is there anyone here who claims to be?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's put it this way...

With IC's Christian God, there is a Scripture filled with moral Commandments. There is a Judgment Day. You are ever and always prompted to ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?" given any particular set of circumstances.

If you do what you are convinced He would do chances are you go up. And, if not, down. Depending on the number of transgressions and how consequential they are.

Dear heavens, it's embarassing how little you know about what Christians believe.

And yet, you talk, and talk, and talk...and are overweeningly confident about being wrong, too. It's unbelievable. No wonder I no longer spend any time talking with you.

You need to actually read a Bible someday. It really would be grand if you had a modicum of information.

[iambiguous]

Well, let's put it this way...

With IC's Christian God, there is a Scripture filled with moral Commandments. There is a Judgment Day. You are ever and always prompted to ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?" given any particular set of circumstances.

If you do what you are convinced He would do chances are you go up. And, if not, down. Depending on the number of transgressions and how consequential they are.

Dear heavens, it's embarassing how little you know about what Christians believe.

And yet, you talk, and talk, and talk...and are overweeningly confident about being wrong, too. It's unbelievable. No wonder I no longer spend any time talking with you.

You need to actually read a Bible someday. It really would be grand if you had a modicum of information.

Absolutely shameless!!

And, besides, it's not what Christians believe but what True Christians believe.

Right?

In other words, what "in your head" you believe.


Oh, and just out of curiosity, how does a True Christian react to this: https://youtu.be/j4OxiwSGDUM?si=8jkcgU5LHi3lS7Ao
What's your reaction?

Now, let's tackle this part:

Did you see the movie "The Sound of Freedom"? You should. Child trafficking is horrendous stuff. And somebody who had experienced it would have every right to be angry with the perps, and to call upon God to perform justice upon them...which He most certainly will. Fair enough.

Please.

Either the Christian God is omnipotent and -- presto! -- in the blink of an eye He can end the suffering of all children forevermore, or He has His Divine reasons for doing nothing at all. Not only in regard to sex-trafficking, but also regarding those 10,000+ children that die from starvation every single day. And then these children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _disorders

Or the estimated 2,000,000 still births and 23,000,000 miscarriages a year around the globe?

Here are two attempts to explain the Christian God and the suffering of children.

https://youtu.be/fqnBBIahyKI?si=RSIyaLbz3XXtK3EE
https://youtu.be/bj6nOxKODUk?si=L50MU0fAnve-RlYb

How about IC viewing them and then coming back with what he construes to be examples of Logic 101 in their assessments.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's put it this way...

With IC's Christian God, there is a Scripture filled with moral Commandments. There is a Judgment Day. You are ever and always prompted to ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?" given any particular set of circumstances.

If you do what you are convinced He would do chances are you go up. And, if not, down. Depending on the number of transgressions and how consequential they are.

Dear heavens, it's embarassing how little you know about what Christians believe.

And yet, you talk, and talk, and talk...and are overweeningly confident about being wrong, too. It's unbelievable. No wonder I no longer spend any time talking with you.

You need to actually read a Bible someday. It really would be grand if you had a modicum of information.

Absolutely shameless!!

Absolutely clueless.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely clueless.

On the other hand, given this...

Did you see the movie "The Sound of Freedom"? You should. Child trafficking is horrendous stuff. And somebody who had experienced it would have every right to be angry with the perps, and to call upon God to perform justice upon them...which He most certainly will. Fair enough.

Please.

Either the Christian God is omnipotent and -- presto! -- in the blink of an eye He can end the suffering of all children forevermore, or He has His Divine reasons for doing nothing at all. Not only in regard to sex-trafficking, but also regarding those 10,000+ children that die from starvation every single day. And then these children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _disorders

Or the estimated 2,000,000 still births and 23,000,000 miscarriages a year around the globe?

And this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...maybe the Christian God is absolutely clueless regarding what it means to be "loving, just and merciful".

[Iwannaplato]

Dasein is really a fancy term for *location*.

I think 'experience' is clearer. What one experiences. Location has a lot of effects on this, though if you're with an expat family in Singapore, the greater where might have little effect.

[Peter Holmes]

...it is precisely in regard to "for all practical purposes" human interactions that I aim to explore dasein in regard to objective morality.

Sorry to intrude - but I've been trying to follow your thinking. And sorry if I've missed it - but can you explain how rooting everything in dasein affects any conclusions you or we can reach about the possibility of objective morality - the existence of moral facts? No worries if you're bored doing this - and sorry, again.

Start with the OPs here:
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

They encompass the "for all practical purposes" parameters of dasein [for me] in the is/ought world of conflicting value judgments.

It's an objective fact that some women choose abortion. Is it an objective fact, as well, that choosing abortion is immoral? Also, from conception to birth, when in fact, objectively, do the unborn become actual human beings?

And then given an issue like abortion, note how my frame of mind "here and now" is not applicable to your own value judgments.

So, what could make morality objective?

Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God. Why? Because God is generally thought to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Also, He brings it all down to Judgment Day where the fate of our very soul is decided for all the rest of eternity.

This I don't understand. Why would there being an omni maker of everything, with a plan and purpose for everything, who'll judge us according to whether we follow the plan, mean that there are moral facts?

Well, let's put it this way...

With IC's Christian God, there is a Scripture filled with moral Commandments. There is a Judgment Day. You are ever and always prompted to ask yourself, "what would Jesus do?" given any particular set of circumstances.

If you do what you are convinced He would do chances are you go up. And, if not, down. Depending on the number of transgressions and how consequential they are.

Then all of the denominational squabbles over what exactly that entails.

Then the part where the God of Abraham above is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. And that would seem crucial in differentiating good from evil.

Is there anyone here who claims to be?

Thanks. I've read the posts you link to.

And your account of theistic moral objectivism seems to confirm that there are no moral facts - but only obedience or disobedience. So I still don't understand why you agree with IC that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent god would mean there are moral facts. But I perhaps I misunderstand your answer to the question 'What could make morality objective?':

'Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God.'

[iambiguous]

And your account of theistic moral objectivism seems to confirm that there are no moral facts - but only obedience or disobedience.

Well, there may be moral facts. And, if so, they may be derived from religion or deontology or science or ideology or biological imperatives.

All I'm noting is that "here and now" I have not myself come upon a demonstrable argument able to convince me that this is the case.

Though, sure, if there are those here who can articulate what they construe to be moral facts regarding an issue like abortion, I'd like to pursue that.

So I still don't understand why you agree with IC that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent god would mean there are moral facts. But I perhaps I misunderstand your answer to the question 'What could make morality objective?':

'Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God.'

Because [again] if anyone is said to have access to objective morality, it would be an entity that is both all-knowing and all-powerful.

There's no question of whether behaviors are right or wrong to someone who literally knows everything there is to know about everything. And, as well, regarding someone mere mortals can never hope to deceive. No God and there may be [philosophically or otherwise] an objective morality. But you have to be caught by other mere mortals in order to be punished. With God we get moral Commandments and Judgment Day. And mere mortals have nothing even remotely close to that, do they?

[Peter Holmes]

And your account of theistic moral objectivism seems to confirm that there are no moral facts - but only obedience or disobedience.

Well, there may be moral facts. And, if so, they may be derived from religion or deontology or science or ideology or biological imperatives.

All I'm noting is that "here and now" I have not myself come upon a demonstrable argument able to convince me that this is the case.

Though, sure, if there are those here who can articulate what they construe to be moral facts regarding an issue like abortion, I'd like to pursue that.

So I still don't understand why you agree with IC that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent god would mean there are moral facts. But I perhaps I misunderstand your answer to the question 'What could make morality objective?':

'Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God.'

Because [again] if anyone is said to have access to objective morality, it would be an entity that is both all-knowing and all-powerful.

There's no question of whether behaviors are right or wrong to someone who literally knows everything there is to know about everything. And, as well, regarding someone mere mortals can never hope to deceive. No God and there may be [philosophically or otherwise] an objective morality. But you have to be caught by other mere mortals in order to be punished. With God we get moral Commandments and Judgment Day. And mere mortals have nothing even remotely close to that, do they?

If there are moral facts, then the existence of any being - even an omnipotent and omniscient one - is irrelevant. And the existence of a god - even IC's team's God - would not make morality objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA has cited the supposedly antirealist claim that what we call reality is an hallucination. And IWP has pointed out a problem with this, as follows.

'It makes no sense of an antirealist to start calling perceptions hallucinations, because for the antirealist those perceptions ARE THE ONLY REAL THINGS, they don't come from something else or point to something else.

Only a realist can call them Hallucinations. Because then you are saying they may not match what is out there.

If there is no mind independent world and you call all perceptions hallucinations, there's nothing real. Nothing.'

I think this is spot on. To put it another way. If my dog is an hallucination, then so are the atoms, sub-atomic particles and quantum events that constitute my dog. Iow, a house is no more or less real than the bricks that constitute it.

VA's appeal to 'fsks' and 'fsrs' - ways of knowing and describing reality - is wanting to eat and still have the cake.

And there's no way from this skepticism about what we call reality to moral realism or objectivism.

[Flannel Jesus]

VA has many realist assumptions, but they are brushed under the rug.

[iambiguous]

And your account of theistic moral objectivism seems to confirm that there are no moral facts - but only obedience or disobedience.

Well, there may be moral facts. And, if so, they may be derived from religion or deontology or science or ideology or biological imperatives.

All I'm noting is that "here and now" I have not myself come upon a demonstrable argument able to convince me that this is the case.

Though, sure, if there are those here who can articulate what they construe to be moral facts regarding an issue like abortion, I'd like to pursue that.

So I still don't understand why you agree with IC that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent god would mean there are moral facts. But I perhaps I misunderstand your answer to the question 'What could make morality objective?':

'Well, IC and I both agree that would be a God, the God.'

Because [again] if anyone is said to have access to objective morality, it would be an entity that is both all-knowing and all-powerful.

There's no question of whether behaviors are right or wrong to someone who literally knows everything there is to know about everything. And, as well, regarding someone mere mortals can never hope to deceive. No God and there may be [philosophically or otherwise] an objective morality. But you have to be caught by other mere mortals in order to be punished. With God we get moral Commandments and Judgment Day. And mere mortals have nothing even remotely close to that, do they?

If there are moral facts, then the existence of any being - even an omnipotent and omniscient one - is irrelevant. And the existence of a god - even IC's team's God - would not make morality objective.

Well, if it is true that 1] the Christian God does in fact exist and, 2] that Judgment Day is in fact the real deal, and 3] that this God can in fact send my soul to Heaven or to Hell, this certainly works for me in establishing that the Christian God and objectively morality are "as one".

And what could possibly make morality more objective than that?

Anyone here able to actually note what they construe to be "moral facts" in the absence of a God, the God?

[Peter Holmes]

Well, there may be moral facts. And, if so, they may be derived from religion or deontology or science or ideology or biological imperatives.

All I'm noting is that "here and now" I have not myself come upon a demonstrable argument able to convince me that this is the case.

Though, sure, if there are those here who can articulate what they construe to be moral facts regarding an issue like abortion, I'd like to pursue that.

Because [again] if anyone is said to have access to objective morality, it would be an entity that is both all-knowing and all-powerful.

There's no question of whether behaviors are right or wrong to someone who literally knows everything there is to know about everything. And, as well, regarding someone mere mortals can never hope to deceive. No God and there may be [philosophically or otherwise] an objective morality. But you have to be caught by other mere mortals in order to be punished. With God we get moral Commandments and Judgment Day. And mere mortals have nothing even remotely close to that, do they?

If there are moral facts, then the existence of any being - even an omnipotent and omniscient one - is irrelevant. And the existence of a god - even IC's team's God - would not make morality objective.

Well, if it is true that 1] the Christian God does in fact exist and, 2] that Judgment Day is in fact the real deal, and 3] that this God can in fact send my soul to Heaven or to Hell, this certainly works for me in establishing that the Christian God and objectively morality are "as one".

And what could possibly make morality more objective than that?

'If the Christian god exists, and can send me to heaven or hell at the judgement day, then there are moral facts.'

Cobblers. Nothing but power and obedience or disobedience. But perhaps your conception of moral rightness and wrongness is different from mine.

[iambiguous]

If there are moral facts, then the existence of any being - even an omnipotent and omniscient one - is irrelevant. And the existence of a god - even IC's team's God - would not make morality objective.

Well, if it is true that 1] the Christian God does in fact exist and, 2] that Judgment Day is in fact the real deal, and 3] that this God can in fact send my soul to Heaven or to Hell, this certainly works for me in establishing that the Christian God and objectively morality are "as one".

And what could possibly make morality more objective than that?

'If the Christian god exists, and can send me to heaven or hell at the judgement day, then there are moral facts.'

Cobblers. Nothing but power and obedience or disobedience. But perhaps your conception of moral rightness and wrongness is different from mine.

Cobblers: "A load of old cobblers" and variants such as "what a load of cobblers" or just "cobblers!" is British slang for "what nonsense" that is derived from the Cockney rhyming slang for "balls" of "cobbler's awls". Wikipedia

Again, my conceptions are rooted in the arguments I made above in my signature links.

And if in fact an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist and can in fact "for all practical purposes" send my soul to Heaven or Hell on Judgment Day, sure, given free will, I can choose to disobey Him and end up damned.

And some might do that. "Nobody -- not even God -- can tell me what to do or not do!"

Well, I'm not one of them. Demonstrate the existence of the Christian God to me and I'm born again.

It's easy enough to think, "fuck God and His judgment day!" when you are not, say, all that close to the abyss yourself. But once oblivion is just around the corner...?

[Iwannaplato]

Cobblers: "A load of old cobblers" and variants such as "what a load of cobblers" or just "cobblers!" is British slang for "what nonsense" that is derived from the Cockney rhyming slang for "balls" of "cobbler's awls". Wikipedia

Again, my conceptions are rooted in the arguments I made above in my signature links.

And if in fact an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist and can in fact "for all practical purposes" send my soul to Heaven or Hell on Judgment Day, sure, given free will, I can choose to disobey Him and end up damned.

And some might do that. "Nobody -- not even God -- can tell me what to do or not do!"

Well, I'm not one of them. Demonstrate the existence of the Christian God to me and I'm born again.

It's easy enough to think, "fuck God and His judgment day!" when you are not, say, all that close to the abyss yourself. But once oblivion is just around the corner...?

Notice that your response in no way justifies view this deity as determining moral facts. I'm sure we can all have sympathy for wanting to avoid eternal damnation. But that's a practical decision. You justify your view that there would be objective moral facts by saying you would want to avoid the abyss.

And your reaction to him, where you assume he would say no to God, is that he might not be so brave when the actual choice came up. Again, not moral. You think considerations of self-protection would make him go along with this deity. Which is precisely what he is saying. It's a power issue and not a moral issue.

You didn't rebut his point, you confirmed it.

Also you seem to be preventing yourself as fixed, despite telling us that your values have changed radically over time in a number of shifts. Perhaps tomorrow, when put in this scenario, you'd react differently. The news that there has been a Christian deity all along could well affect you in ways you cannot predict, especially given the amount of doubt about drawing both moral and factual conclusions you seem to have. How could you possibly know how you the biggest piece of information you could possibly get would affect you?

Or you can, somehow, know, and you've exaggerated the uncertainty you've long presented as entailed by dasein.