TRUMP AHEAD?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I believe that morality has an objective existence as a shared human concept, it's just our specific moral values that are subjective. I don't get the impression that Trump has any moral values of any sort.

When our world, existence, the way things are here, is examined you notice that a tremendous array of laws and rules are part-and-parcel of it. I refer to material laws like gravity, energy exchange, light, thermodynamics, etc.

What I find curious is that it must be understood that all these rules existed prior to anything actually taking shape. The rules were latent within the potential of the manifesting universe.

Yet when the notion of a determined morality — the ways that humankind would conceive of, would •receive• through internal, intuited processes (revelation), and also through external manifestations, a •moral law• given as a necessity, as a command, as an imperative — is mentioned and referred to as real (as real, even more real in some senses, than all other things), the •idea• there is entirely rejected.

You won’t and cannot say that material and natural laws are subjectively determined, yet you will say and do say that moral laws — the entire structure of morality — is invented and therefore determined by man.

It is a curious conundrum because you cannot do without the judging capability offered by morality and moralizing thought, and at the same time you undercut your capability of making moral judgments.

In the end — with subjectivism — it all depends on what a person and a group of persons decide is •true• i.e. that which cannot be denied as being factual — like the temperature at which water boils and all those material facts.

If this is true then — when it is closely examined — no morality actually has any true standing. You can make no moral statements. You can only express your subjective desire and perhaps that of a group.

A morality then can only be understood as a group-will. A group subjectivity. Determined by numbers. And determined by self-interests.

What is interesting here is that if only material laws are understood as being real, and laws of a super-material and metaphysical nature are negated, then the only real base for judging conduct is if it conforms to and expresses natural laws like thermodynamics and the ecological laws that determine natural, biological systems. “The law of the jungle”.

If metaphysical and super-natural laws are denied in the end — think about it — the only real bedrock is Nature : a cruel mistress.

In the human world what will that portend? The rule of stark power. The empowered, determining State.

The •moral individual• is a chimera.

In truth you cannot do without that schema of metaphysical, super-material values! If these are erased and denied you fall victim to a determinism that looks to be a trap.

[Harbal]

I have not the slightest idea why you would think that. I've been speaking about the definition and meaning of morality, not the exercising thereof. But morality is nothing if not "practical." What would an "unpracticed morality" even look like?

What I mean is that I have mainly talked about my own sense of morality, and why I try to put it into practice. Your interest seems to have been more in why others should adopt any particular moral stance. So I am just making it clear that my main concern is my own moral conduct, not that of others.

My actual concern is to arrive at a better definition of "morality" -- useful for both personal morality and social codes, because without such a clear conception, one cannot even think of oneself as "moral" and mean anything by the word.

Well I don't have any such concerns, so I'm not looking for any solutions. I'm still interested in your thoughts on the matter, though, even though I have nothing to say about it myself.

I agree that the moral conduct of some people is a social problem, and that it is legitimate for it to be addressed.

Then two questions: on what rational basis do we condemn the conduct of these "some people," and believe our own conduct to be better;

My only basis is my own sense of right and wrong, and I know of no other basis.

and how is it "legitimate" for us to "address" somebody else's subjective view of morality? Those things need explanation, if we're going to regard ourselves as good people acting rightly.

I seem to be able to regard myself as a good person doing the right thing quite a lot of the time, so I don't feel the need for such an explanation, but I'm happy to keep you company while you look for one.

Wherever the moral message is purported to have originated, it is always delivered by a human being,

That's the point of contention, though: you think that's true, and I think there are moral principles we get from a transcendent Source.

And what knowledge of any transcendent source do we have that hasn't come to us via another human being?

That's the matter we'd have to settle. And unless you want to rule on it arbitrarily and just dismiss my view without reason, then you'd need more than a wish to dispatch the possibility that I, and so many other persons of faith, are simply all confused about that.

In as much as I have dismissed your view, I haven't done it arbitrarily, or without reason; I have done it because it is incompatible with my view. Any moral values that came from a transcendent source would not be mine, would they? In order to believe I am acting morally, I have to do what I believe to be morally good. I can have more confidence in someone else's opinion or judgement than my own when it come to diagnosing a problem with my health, but that doesn't work with morality. My feelings are at the root of my moral beliefs, and my feelings do not reside within some transcendental source.

The only basis I have is my own sense of morality.

Why, then, is the Sharia practitioner obligated to agree with somebody else's "sense of morality"? Yet you would subject him to the force of the law and to imprisonment, and all for following his own "sense of morality"?

There is nothing in my morality that demands I respect anyone else's if I believe they are wrong.

Try to think of a way to get my moral values universally accepted, you mean?

Well, at least to justify your own moral beliefs sufficiently that others can say, "Yes, I see why you believe what you believe, and I can reasonably make space for you to believe and practice that.

If they are not prepared to make space for my not stealing from them, and not lying to them, then I'm afraid they will just have to put up with it. One has to draw the line somewhere.

This brings us to that other feature of all morality that I think I can prove to you.

Morality always involves other people.

Well of course it does, and every action I perform that I consider to be a matter of morality is in respect of other people. No proof is necessary.

Well, here we need to make another distinction. It's between the pragmatic and the moral. To be pragmatic is to do something that gets you some goal. To be moral, though, is to make sacrifices...to set aside one's pragmatic goals in order to respond to a higher good.

That distinction would already have been made.

I'm not sure I understand that response.

I don't see how you can do something for moral reasons without first being aware of what is morally good about doing it.

But it gives you the information you asked for. You asked what I thought morality was.

I need much more than that. And so do you, if you want to rationalize your own moral choices,

The only rationality involved in making a moral choice is to check that it corresponds to my moral values. It would be irrational to make a moral choice that did not correspond with them. And what is the rational basis for my moral values will probably be your next question. There is no rational basis for them; they are based entirely on sentiment.

What if somebody suggests a moral precept, such as "You shouldn't steal," and it turns out your inner sense or conscience recognizes it as morally right? Do you think there's a conflict there?

No, but it would indicate that I wasn't in need of that somebody's suggestion in the first place.

That would be true only if your own internal moral register were infallible..

But untrue only if theirs were infallible.

Well, we've got a start. We agree that a "moral" value 1) should come with some sort of sense of duty or "compulsion," as you put it, to act on it. If you agree, we also know that 2) the "moral" should not be subject merely to the pragmatic, but involve a sacrifice for principle or a higher good. And I think we can go further, too: 3) the "moral" will inevitably involve social relations, or interactions with others -- and I think I can make that case. So we're making headway here.

Yes, I agree with that.

Then isn't our discussion at least marginally fruitful? We have at least three criteria we didn't have consciousness of before. We seemt to be getting somewhere, do we not?

You haven't yet got me to go somewhere I don't want to go, is how I would put it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And unless you want to rule on it arbitrarily and just dismiss my view without reason, then you'd need more than a wish to dispatch the possibility that I, and so many other persons of faith, are simply all confused about that.

What that •that• is, is what confuses. And when that •that• is held by certain persons or groups who say we have it, we administer and regulate it — that is where the anti-religionists kick up their heels.

Logically so, I’m afraid.

We have right before us, in living color, like a battle between King Kong and Godzilla, the religiously (Christianly) defined and arbitrated struggle in Palestine-Israel where a multitude of Evangelicals can only see through a religious mythology determined lens.

And each consequential issue of our day, when religiously defined values seek to enter into the social world and to influence or determine conduct, are highly problematic to those who, say, are sensitive to hypocrisy.

Recently, and the symbolism is stark and as real as I have ever seen it manifest, the notion of The Kingship of Christ has become conceptually manifest (mostly through Candace Owens).

The idea is profoundly metaphysical and supernatural.

The implication is, of course, that it is God who has rights over man and not man over God.

But how could it be asked of anyone — and those anti-religionists and anti-metaphysicians who populate this forum — to accept the nuttery of religious zealots in their drive to realize Armageddon?

Therefore, there is no way around a turn back into rationalizing processes of thought and analysis. Where metaphysics ans supernaturalism is contemplated by thinking men.

But this is almost impossible when the irrational side of religious fanaticism is faced squarely. Certainly the masses (Mass Man with no substantial preparation) cannot carry this out.

Mostly, this is what I perceive that Harbal et al object to.

[Immanuel Can]

Then two questions: on what rational basis do we condemn the conduct of these "some people," and believe our own conduct to be better;

My only basis is my own sense of right and wrong, and I know of no other basis.

Then there's a real problem. That would mean that either you a) can't say anything about anybody else's take on morality, and have to let them do whatever they want...even if it's evil, or b) you have to become a gratuitious authoritarian, and force your beliefs -- which you believe to be only subjective -- down their throats against their wills.

I suspect you won't want to do the second; but you also surely won't want to do the first. So what can you do?

That's the point of contention, though: you think that's true, and I think there are moral principles we get from a transcendent Source.

And what knowledge of any transcendent source do we have that hasn't come to us via another human being?

Surely the question is not who it came "via," but rather whether what they said was true or not. If it was true, then it really doesn't matter who said it; if it was not, then the speaker is irrelevant to making it true.

My feelings are at the root of my moral beliefs, and my feelings do not reside within some transcendental source.

But nobody else's feelings are at the root of your moral beliefs, and yours are not at the root of somebody else's. You'd surely squawk if I said to you, "Follow my beliefs, because they're mine," or if I called the authorities to force you to do what I wanted. So you can't do the same to anybody else, can you? That means you have no moral information relevant to anybody else. And purely personal information has no moral dimension at all, because as we saw, morality always has to do with at least one other person, not just you.

Why, then, is the Sharia practitioner obligated to agree with somebody else's "sense of morality"? Yet you would subject him to the force of the law and to imprisonment, and all for following his own "sense of morality"?

There is nothing in my morality that demands I respect anyone else's if I believe they are wrong.

But you can't say that they "are wrong." "Are wrong" would imply objectivism...that there is a right and wrong relevant to their behaviour, not only to yours. So you'd have to reduce that to, "I don't have to respect anybody else if I don't like what they do."

Well, at least to justify your own moral beliefs sufficiently that others can say, "Yes, I see why you believe what you believe, and I can reasonably make space for you to believe and practice that.

If they are not prepared to make space for my not stealing from them, and not lying to them, then I'm afraid they will just have to put up with it.

And will you be prepared to make space for them to beat their wives, molest children, execute infidels...

This brings us to that other feature of all morality that I think I can prove to you.

Morality always involves other people.

Well of course it does, and every action I perform that I consider to be a matter of morality is in respect of other people. No proof is necessary.

Oh, good. That was easy.

But do you notice that it comes with a corollary? That is, if my morality always involves another person, then what my moral choices are is no longer a purely personal choice. It's going to help or harm some other person. So we're going to have to talk about what morality you can have, that your neighbour can also have, and both of you can agree is right for the relationship between you. Morality and society becomes the issue.

I don't see how you can do something for moral reasons without first being aware of what is morally good about doing it.

Oh, that's easy. Just redefine your morality -- it's subjective anyway -- to make whatever it is you want "moral" by your personal definition. You dont't have to be "aware" of anything, since "awareness" implies consciousness of something real, external and objective...and you've said that morality isn't like that. So yes, a person can do things for reasons he/she calls "moral," all the while being very immoral by way of other people's estimations, or the standard of objective morality.

...what is the rational basis for my moral values will probably be your next question. There is no rational basis for them; they are based entirely on sentiment.

How far do you expect your "sentiment" to take you? You surely don't expect it to provide a rule for anybody else, right? Do you expect it to give anybody else grounds to identify you as a "good" person? Well, they can call you "sentimental," perhaps, but since there's no objectivity to goodness, as you say, then they can't call you that, either. Do you expect it to reassure yourself of your own "goodness"? But then again, there's no objective substance to your own assessment, you say. So "sentiment" is not actually justifying anything you do. It might explain a crass motive as to why you do it, but it won't explain why the thing you do is "good."

That would be true only if your own internal moral register were infallible..

But untrue only if theirs were infallible.

Quite so. A moral code is only as good as it's originator.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Surely the question is not who it came "via," but rather whether what they said was true or not. If it was true, then it really doesn't matter who said it; if it was not, then the speaker is irrelevant to making it true.

It is written (reference to Bible literature) that there are sins that “cry to Heaven for vengeance”. Such as a man fucking another man in his ass and not paying those who work for you (cheating or exploiting workmen generally).

How shall the multitude decide if what is suggested here is really true? How can they really be certain that divine justice will take the threatened vengeance?

So we see that a great deal depends on •who• said it and •why• they said it. It could hardly be expected that someone — Harbal for example — would pay heed to some Hebrew prophet’s received threat from a source which that prophet declared was God. Harbal would say it is just an internal voice. Something imagined. Or hallucinated.

And that is what Harbal (and nearly all others who contribute to this forum) cannot believe nor take seriously.

If I say that “water boils at 212 degrees at sea-level” it is an incontrovertible fact. Fight against it all you want but it can be proved.

But if I say “God will get even with you if you fail to pay a workman” it really does not matter that a Hebrew prophet said it, or if a child on monkey bars sucking a popsicle says it. There is no way for its facticity to be verified.

This, in truth, is the issue Harbal and others face.

[Harbal]

Then two questions: on what rational basis do we condemn the conduct of these "some people," and believe our own conduct to be better;

My only basis is my own sense of right and wrong, and I know of no other basis.

Then there's a real problem.

I'm sorry about that; I hope you manage to sort it out.

That would mean that either you a) can't say anything about anybody else's take on morality, and have to let them do whatever they want...even if it's evil, or b) you have to become a gratuitious authoritarian, and force your beliefs -- which you believe to be only subjective -- down their throats against their wills.

I suspect you won't want to do the second; but you also surely won't want to do the first. So what can you do?

I'm going to throw caution to the wind, and do absolutely nothing.

And what knowledge of any transcendent source do we have that hasn't come to us via another human being?

Surely the question is not who it came "via," but rather whether what they said was true or not.

And how do we know that what they told us was true?

My feelings are at the root of my moral beliefs, and my feelings do not reside within some transcendental source.

But nobody else's feelings are at the root of your moral beliefs, and yours are not at the root of somebody else's.

Which kind of makes the whole thing sort of, dare I say, subjective.

You'd surely squawk if I said to you, "Follow my beliefs, because they're mine,"

Yes I would, and even if you were a transcendental authority.

That means you have no moral information relevant to anybody else.

I only require it to be relevant to me. My morality guides my conduct, and that is all I expect of it.

And purely personal information has no moral dimension at all, because as we saw, morality always has to do with at least one other person, not just you.

Yes, it has to do with how I treat that person, but I can't just assume it will influence how they treat me.

There is nothing in my morality that demands I respect anyone else's if I believe they are wrong.

But you can't say that they "are wrong."

I don't see why not.

"Are wrong" would imply objectivism...that there is a right and wrong relevant to their behaviour, not only to yours. So you'd have to reduce that to, "I don't have to respect anybody else if I don't like what they do."

Implying objectivism isn't a problem, it is achieving it that I find too much of a challenge.

Well, at least to justify your own moral beliefs sufficiently that others can say, "Yes, I see why you believe what you believe, and I can reasonably make space for you to believe and practice that.

If they are not prepared to make space for my not stealing from them, and not lying to them, then I'm afraid they will just have to put up with it.

And will you be prepared to make space for them to beat their wives, molest children, execute infidels...

Not if I can do anything to prevent them.

Well of course it does, and every action I perform that I consider to be a matter of morality is in respect of other people. No proof is necessary.

Oh, good. That was easy.

But do you notice that it comes with a corollary? That is, if my morality always involves another person, then what my moral choices are is no longer a purely personal choice. It's going to help or harm some other person. So we're going to have to talk about what morality you can have, that your neighbour can also have, and both of you can agree is right for the relationship between you. Morality and society becomes the issue.

As long as I don't do my neighbour any harm, I don't see why he should be dissatisfied with the situation, but if he wants to talk about morality that is right for both of us, I'll listen, but I can't promise I will agree.

I don't see how you can do something for moral reasons without first being aware of what is morally good about doing it.

Oh, that's easy. Just redefine your morality -- it's subjective anyway -- to make whatever it is you want "moral" by your personal definition.

I'm sorry to hear that that is the sort of person you think I am.

...what is the rational basis for my moral values will probably be your next question. There is no rational basis for them; they are based entirely on sentiment.

How far do you expect your "sentiment" to take you? You surely don't expect it to provide a rule for anybody else, right?

That's right, just a rule for me.

Do you expect it to give anybody else grounds to identify you as a "good" person?

I don't expect it, but it has happened now and then.

Well, they can call you "sentimental," perhaps, but since there's no objectivity to goodness, as you say, then they can't call you that, either. Do you expect it to reassure yourself of your own "goodness"? But then again, there's no objective substance to your own assessment, you say. So "sentiment" is not actually justifying anything you do. It might explain a crass motive as to why you do it, but it won't explain why the thing you do is "good."

Nevertheless, it's all I have.

That would be true only if your own internal moral register were infallible..

But untrue only if theirs were infallible.

Quite so. A moral code is only as good as it's originator.

Okay, the floor is yours to talk about good originators, and our reasons for recognising them as such.

[Harbal]

Surely the question is not who it came "via," but rather whether what they said was true or not. If it was true, then it really doesn't matter who said it; if it was not, then the speaker is irrelevant to making it true.

It is written (reference to Bible literature) that there are sins that “cry to Heaven for vengeance”. Such as a man fucking another man in his ass and not paying

That's why it's always wise to ask for the cash up front.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I commend your prudence.

[Harbal]

I commend your prudence.

Yes, well, I've been caught with my pants down too many times.

[Immanuel Can]

And how do we know that what they told us was true?

It depends on Who they were.

There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you.

My feelings are at the root of my moral beliefs, and my feelings do not reside within some transcendental source.

But nobody else's feelings are at the root of your moral beliefs, and yours are not at the root of somebody else's.

Which kind of makes the whole thing sort of, dare I say, subjective.

It makes it absurd. Because it makes "morality" equal to "Whatever Harbal wants." And one cannot even possibly fall afoul of a personal morality, so it means there's no ability to recognize evil, either.

You'd surely squawk if I said to you, "Follow my beliefs, because they're mine,"

Yes I would, and even if you were a transcendental authority.

Then you can't ask anybody else...or even yourself...to feel any "compulsion" about your morality, or to think any such "compulsion" could be reliable and informative of anything at all.

That means you have no moral information relevant to anybody else.

I only require it to be relevant to me.

It isn't even that. For there is no actual reason why even YOU owe yourself to follow your inner twinges.

And purely personal information has no moral dimension at all, because as we saw, morality always has to do with at least one other person, not just you.

Yes, it has to do with how I treat that person, but I can't just assume it will influence how they treat me.

Then it cannot govern, or even inform, a social relationship.

There is nothing in my morality that demands I respect anyone else's if I believe they are wrong.

But you can't say that they "are wrong."

I don't see why not.

Because the word "wrong" has no meaning, under Subjectivism.

"Are wrong" would imply objectivism...that there is a right and wrong relevant to their behaviour, not only to yours. So you'd have to reduce that to, "I don't have to respect anybody else if I don't like what they do."

Implying objectivism isn't a problem,

So long as you don't mind being a fraud. Because you don't believe your views are objectively right, and yet you're bamboozling some other poor fool into thinking he owes you respect for them...and he obviously doesn't.

If they are not prepared to make space for my not stealing from them, and not lying to them, then I'm afraid they will just have to put up with it.

And will you be prepared to make space for them to beat their wives, molest children, execute infidels...

Not if I can do anything to prevent them.

Then you're just intolerant, unless there's some way of showing that what they're doing is objectively immoral...in which case, you'd be a proponent of justice and fairness. But in Subjectivism, there are no such qualities.

Well of course it does, and every action I perform that I consider to be a matter of morality is in respect of other people. No proof is necessary.

Oh, good. That was easy.

But do you notice that it comes with a corollary? That is, if my morality always involves another person, then what my moral choices are is no longer a purely personal choice. It's going to help or harm some other person. So we're going to have to talk about what morality you can have, that your neighbour can also have, and both of you can agree is right for the relationship between you. Morality and society becomes the issue.

As long as I don't do my neighbour any harm, I don't see why he should be dissatisfied with the situation,

He will certainly object to your countermanding his Sharia, and then calling the cops to back your play.

I don't see how you can do something for moral reasons without first being aware of what is morally good about doing it.

Oh, that's easy. Just redefine your morality -- it's subjective anyway -- to make whatever it is you want "moral" by your personal definition.

I'm sorry to hear that that is the sort of person you think I am.

It's not personal. I just mean that, under Subjectivism, people aren't bound to find moral reasons for what they do. They can just reinvent their "morality" subjectively.

But untrue only if theirs were infallible.

Quite so. A moral code is only as good as it's originator.

Okay, the floor is yours to talk about good originators, and our reasons for recognising them as such.

There's but one: God. But you know that, and you don't like it, and you run from it. Subjectively satisfying to the sentiments? Maybe for you, it is. The right strategy objectively? Well, I can only say we'll see.

[Harbal]

And how do we know that what they told us was true?

It depends on Who they were.

There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you.

Why should I believe you, are you infallible, or something?

]Okay, the floor is yours to talk about good originators, and our reasons for recognising them as such.

There's but one: God. But you know that, and you don't like it, and you run from it. Subjectively satisfying to the sentiments? Maybe for you, it is. The right strategy objectively? Well, I can only say we'll see.

I thought you would have more to say than that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you.

But here is the interesting problem: if this is so, or that it is so, you should be able to communicate this to one who does not start from this set of presuppositions.

But you seem not to be able to. In fact you don’t actually flesh out the entirety of the Christian position.

One of the reasons why your argumentation fails (though it might always fail given the nature of the territory) is that you don’t adequately define either God or God’s opponent.

Technically, the anti-supernaturalism of today, and the structured opposition to •the rule of Christ• is an undertaking of an invisible potency that is said to have turned resolutely against God’s ordering project for this manifest Earth. But you have never (as far as I am aware) ever defined that opposing pole.

So the full picture of what the Christian philosophy entails — the metaphysical concepts — is left undefined.

One other problem — it is your problem and that of all Protestants — is that Protestantism had its birth in (forgive this directness) satanic opposition. And if this is understood to be so (though I have no idea how it could be proved or even discussed rationally) then you as Protestant are linked to the rebelliousness of that terrible, demonic power which — and you cannot state this openly — interweaves and interpenetrates the rebellious consciousness of those who oppose your preaching efforts.

What a curious set of problems besets the Occident! And is rife in the Christian world. The schismatic divides — those initiated by the Protestant rebellion — seem only to continue in fracturarían.

And in this sense Harbal is (could be said to be) one significant outcome of this “rebellion”.

So one good question is: Who obeys? That is, who stands in God’s favor and in grace?

[Immanuel Can]

And how do we know that what they told us was true?

It depends on Who they were.

There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you.

Why should I believe you, are you infallible, or something?

Did you really think I meant "believe ME"?

]Okay, the floor is yours to talk about good originators, and our reasons for recognising them as such.

There's but one: God. But you know that, and you don't like it, and you run from it. Subjectively satisfying to the sentiments? Maybe for you, it is. The right strategy objectively? Well, I can only say we'll see.

I thought you would have more to say than that.

I've never argued for any moral authority higher than God. As a Christian, how could I?

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's but one: God. But you know that, and you don't like it, and you run from it. Subjectively satisfying to the sentiments? Maybe for you, it is. The right strategy objectively? Well, I can only say we'll see.

This is Immanuel Can’s kerygma in a nutshell.

Entirely insufficient!

And if he did •know that• he would necessarily take an entirely different tack.

[Harbal]

It depends on Who they were.

There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you.

Why should I believe you, are you infallible, or something?

Did you really think I meant "believe ME"?

We must be long past the stage where you could reasonably expect me to believe you, so I suppose not.

I thought you would have more to say than that.

I've never argued for any moral authority higher than God. As a Christian, how could I?

I'm not a Christian, so I have to make my own arrangements.