Is morality objective or subjective?

[promethean75]

"If there is no actual reason why murder or theft is wrong, then what legitimacy has any society in penalizing somebody for performing those acts, far less for imprisoning anybody?"

My god dude. Becuz most people don't want to be murdered or stolen from, they enact laws prohibiting murder and theft and then pay guys to enforce those laws.

See how easy that was, or are u still scratching your head?

You neither need to appeal to god nor could u even if u wanted, to give legitimacy to penalizing and/or imprisoning people for commiting those crimes.

If a dude said to u 'hey man i don't want to be murdered', you'd say 'that's irrelevant and not enough! God must not want u to be murdered before we make murdering u a legitimate crime, u fool.'

That's u right there. U just said that to that dude.

Now go sit in the corner and think about what u said, young man.

[Harbal]

Yet.

But even now, that's very debatable. Does nobody ever experience a consequence for choosing to do evil?

We'll consult the prisons, and find out.

They put you in prison for breaking the law, not for ignoring supposed objective moral truth.

The objective moral truth is what human laws have to (attempt to) reflect. If there is no actual reason why murder or theft is wrong, then what legitimacy has any society in penalizing somebody for performing those acts, far less for imprisoning anybody?

Human law is based on the human sense of morality, regardless of whether any particular individual regards there being any objective basis for it. Like morality, legitimacy is only a concept with no referent in objective reality; it is purely a matter of subjective, -or intersubjective- agreement.

[Immanuel Can]

That is what I call the universe. You have to try harder since the stuff that made the universe simply could exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.


No.

Then my point is made. It's not true that you will "like it." It's not true that you have to agree to "like" anything, in fact. So the only way to proceed is for me to ask you what sort of proof you WOULD like...and then I'll see if I can give it to you, or if it's even reasonable for you to expect.

Go ahead. What will you accept as proof? And if you don't know, then the obvious answer is that there is nothing you would ever accept. And nobody can fix that disposition for you.

It is not about me like it or not. You need to provide an argument you are comfortable with.

I did. You said you would like it. You didn't.

So now it IS about you: since you don't like whatever I suggest, then it's about what you would accept as proof. Which, it seems, is "nothing, ever." In which case, the only reason you don't know God is because you've decided not to.

[Immanuel Can]

They put you in prison for breaking the law, not for ignoring supposed objective moral truth.

The objective moral truth is what human laws have to (attempt to) reflect. If there is no actual reason why murder or theft is wrong, then what legitimacy has any society in penalizing somebody for performing those acts, far less for imprisoning anybody?

Human law is based on the human sense of morality,

Derived from what? If somebody has a "sense of" something, then there has to be a thing they "have a sense OF," or else they're hallucinating and merely seeing things that aren't there.

But if we objectivists are right, then there IS a moral code, and human codes are attempts to approximate it. And "justice" is really a thing, and really obligatory. And plausibly, as well, judgment on that score is coming.

...legitimacy is only a concept with no referent in objective reality; it is purely a matter of subjective, -or intersubjective- agreement.

Habermas worries about that. He tried to get legitimacy from exactly what you suggest...and failed. For the fact that there is an "agreement" doesn't actually carry any moral water: there's no more reason why we are obligated to respect two or three people saying something arbitrarily than we are to have to take one person's arbitrary wishes seriously...if there's no more than subjectivism to the story.

[bahman]

Then my point is made. It's not true that you will "like it." It's not true that you have to agree to "like" anything, in fact. So the only way to proceed is for me to ask you what sort of proof you WOULD like...and then I'll see if I can give it to you, or if it's even reasonable for you to expect.

Go ahead. What will you accept as proof? And if you don't know, then the obvious answer is that there is nothing you would ever accept. And nobody can fix that disposition for you.

It is not about me like it or not. You need to provide an argument you are comfortable with.

I did. You said you would like it. You didn't.

I counter your argument.

So now it IS about you: since you don't like whatever I suggest, then it's about what you would accept as proof. Which, it seems, is "nothing, ever."

As I said it is not about whether I like your argument or not. If you have an argument just bring it in so we can discuss it.

In which case, the only reason you don't know God is because you've decided not to.

I have had enough spiritual experiences about God, Jesus, Satan, and the like. I am looking for an argument for the existence of God though.

[Harbal]

The objective moral truth is what human laws have to (attempt to) reflect. If there is no actual reason why murder or theft is wrong, then what legitimacy has any society in penalizing somebody for performing those acts, far less for imprisoning anybody?

Human law is based on the human sense of morality,

Derived from what? If somebody has a "sense of" something, then there has to be a thing they "have a sense OF," or else they're hallucinating and merely seeing things that aren't there.

Morality is the thing they have a sense of. It isn't really any different to our sense of humour, in principle. I'm sure lots of things make you laugh, but you don't believe there is such a thing as objectively funny, do you? Or maybe God has to declare something funny before you are prepared to laugh at it.

But if we objectivists are right, then there IS a moral code, and human codes are attempts to approximate it. And "justice" is really a thing, and really obligatory. And plausibly, as well, judgment on that score is coming.

I don't think you need worry about being right about that.

...legitimacy is only a concept with no referent in objective reality; it is purely a matter of subjective, -or intersubjective- agreement.

Habermas worries about that. He tried to get legitimacy from exactly what you suggest...

Well refer him to me, and I'll try to put his mind at rest.

For the fact that there is an "agreement" doesn't actually carry any moral water: there's no more reason why we are obligated to respect two or three people saying something arbitrarily than we are to have to take one person's arbitrary wishes seriously...if there's no more than subjectivism to the story.

But we have to take what the legal system says seriously, regardless of what it is founded on.

[Immanuel Can]

So now it IS about you: since you don't like whatever I suggest, then it's about what you would accept as proof. Which, it seems, is "nothing, ever."

As I said it is not about whether I like your argument or not.

Well, yes; that's what you keep saying. But also, that's wrong. It's very much about whether or not there's ANYTHING you would EVER accept as proof of God's existence.

If there's not, then the game is over. And the reason you've lost it is not for lack of evidence, but for lack of anything you would ever agree to accept.

So again, what will you accept?

[Harbal]

So now it IS about you: since you don't like whatever I suggest, then it's about what you would accept as proof. Which, it seems, is "nothing, ever."

As I said it is not about whether I like your argument or not.

Well, yes; that's what you keep saying. But also, that's wrong. It's very much about whether or not there's ANYTHING you would EVER accept as proof of God's existence.

If there's not, then the game is over. And the reason you've lost it is not for lack of evidence, but for lack of anything you would ever agree to accept.

So again, what will you accept?

Offer him a miracle.

[promethean75]

Couple things here. What's perceived as a miracle could just be a first-time occurance of an abnormal phenomena that has a natural scientific explanation which we are not yet aware of.

If u think you've interacted with some kind of being that's not human, don't automatically assume it's 'god'. It could very well be that there are other life forms - physical or of some other substance - and there is still no 'god'. Just sayin.

It's just that you've been around religious talk about angels and demons and stuff all your life so u naturally assume that this life form you've interacted with is one such creature. Maybe not tho.

[Gary Childress]

Couple things here. What's perceived as a miracle could just be a first-time occurance of an abnormal phenomena that has a natural scientific explanation which we are not yet aware of.

If u think you've interacted with some kind of being that's not human, don't automatically assume it's 'god'. It could very well be that there are other life forms - physical or of some other substance - and there is still no 'god'. Just sayin.

It's just that you've been around religious talk about angels and demons and stuff all your life so u naturally assume that this life form you've interacted with is one such creature. Maybe not tho.

This is my perspective as well. And if that thing that tells you that it's God then tells you to sacrifice your son for it, then it might be a dead giveaway that it aint really the creator of all that is. At least I hope not. It would be a major drag if the creator of all that is, went around telling people to sacrifice their children. I mean, is it like a divine creator joke that all divine creators share with each other when they go to their social gatherings afterward? "Hey, listen to this, Thor. I totally told a stupid human to sacrifice his son for me. And he was going to do it until I told him not to! What a maroon!"

[Harbal]

If u think you've interacted with some kind of being that's not human,

Well I did exchange a few words with Wizard earlier today.

[Gary Childress]

If u think you've interacted with some kind of being that's not human,

Well I did exchange a few words with Wizard earlier today.

Maybe Wizard is the creator of all that is. Sacrificing children sounds like something he'd be telling others to do.

[Harbal]

If u think you've interacted with some kind of being that's not human,

Well I did exchange a few words with Wizard earlier today.

Maybe Wizard is the creator of all that is. Sacrificing children sounds like something he'd be telling others to do.

I would say he is more the creator of all that should not be.

[Gary Childress]

Well I did exchange a few words with Wizard earlier today.

Maybe Wizard is the creator of all that is. Sacrificing children sounds like something he'd be telling others to do.

I would say he is more the creator of all that should not be.

[promethean75]

Yeah I'm not talkin about Descartes' deus deceptor, either. He's sayin he has proof that he exists if he's being deceived. Yeah that's obvious, Frenchy. Didn't need an entire meditations to work that one out.

What I'm saying is more ominous, and my doubt is much more radical than his. I'm sayin if 'god' existed, this god could never prove to me that it's THE god, the main one at the top of the corporate ladder. But the supreme irony is, I'm employing such doubt due to the faculties of reason that this god has supposedly instilled in me, himself.

God: don't believe anything a being that claims to be god, says, Prom.

Whadaya think about that, Rene?