Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

If you think henry's feeling that we have natural rights isn't a position of subjectivity, please explain why not.

The assumption that things called "natural rights" exist is premised on Theism.

So henry believes our natural rights come from whatever particular gods he believes in,...

And yet, since there's only one true God...if natural rights exist, then exist only by way of that God.

No such case at all can be made from Subjectivism. Therefore, presuppositionally, the natural rights position is Theistic, even when it is not explicitly so. And Henry, as a Deist, is, of course, rationally capable of believing in such things as "natural rights."

I am rationally capable of believing that natural rights come from the collective human concepts of fairness and justice,

That's not rational, because "some humans have an idea" isn't a basis for belief in any natural rights. What "right" can the accidental byproduct of an accidental universe "rationalize" with his own worldview? None at all.

and thus is not asserting a postion that defeats itself

I have never asserted a position that defeats itself, either.

Subjectivism. And it defeats itself very obviously.

The "subjective" is, by definition, not obligatory to anybody...even yourself, since subjectivity shifts all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

In his pride and contempt for those who disagree with him, IC...

Not worth my time to comment on. Doesn't even start with a realistic premise.

[Harbal]

The assumption that things called "natural rights" exist is premised on Theism.

So henry believes our natural rights come from whatever particular gods he believes in,...

And yet, since there's only one true God...if natural rights exist, then exist only by way of that God.

What kind of answer is that? I asked you if that's what you thought henry believed, and I wanted to know if that makes his belief in objective morality legitimate in your view. I don't know if henry believes that morality comes from the gods he believes in, but I assume you think he does, because of your comment that his view was based on theism.

I am rationally capable of believing that natural rights come from the collective human concepts of fairness and justice,

That's not rational, because "some humans have an idea" isn't a basis for belief in any natural rights.

Human beings are a product of nature, so if nature has programmed us with the capacity to formulate concepts such as morality, then there is a natural basis for the view that morality is some kind of objective natural phenomenon.

I have never asserted a position that defeats itself, either.
Subjectivism. And it defeats itself very obviously.

The "subjective" is, by definition, not obligatory to anybody...even yourself, since subjectivity shifts all the time.

It's compelling, but not obligatory, just like God given morality is for you, I imagine. But what has that got to do with anything?

[Immanuel Can]

I asked you if that's what you thought henry believed, and I wanted to know if that makes his belief in objective morality legitimate in your view.

Potentially, it does. Subjectivism, not even potentially.

I am rationally capable of believing that natural rights come from the collective human concepts of fairness and justice,

That's not rational, because "some humans have an idea" isn't a basis for belief in any natural rights.

Human beings are a product of nature, so if nature has programmed us with the capacity to formulate concepts such as morality, then there is a natural basis for the view that morality is some kind of objective natural phenomenon.

No, there's only a basis from that to say that nature has programmed us. It doesn't mean we have a duty to follow the programming. Nature has programmed us for cancer, for violence, for exploitation, for genetic defects...all kinds of things we rightly struggle to overcome. So we have no way of knowing, given it's only nature, what we should attend and what we should eliminate.

Nature does not care what you do. Nature has no opinions. Nature is not your friend, benevolently watching over you to make sure that only good happens to you, and that you do only good. Nature, as understood by secularists, is an impersonal, morally-uncaring force.

We can't get morality from that.

[Harbal]

I asked you if that's what you thought henry believed, and I wanted to know if that makes his belief in objective morality legitimate in your view.

Potentially, it does. Subjectivism, not even potentially.

So as long as you believe in a god of some kind, you are able to be objectively moral?

Human beings are a product of nature, so if nature has programmed us with the capacity to formulate concepts such as morality, then there is a natural basis for the view that morality is some kind of objective natural phenomenon.

No, there's only a basis from that to say that nature has programmed us.

And have I ever claimed more than that?

At least it cannot be disputed that nature exists, which is very much not the case with God.

Nature does not care what you do. Nature has no opinions. Nature is not your friend, benevolently watching over you to make sure that only good happens to you, and that you do only good. Nature, as understood by secularists, is an impersonal, morally-uncaring force.

But human nature isn't, by and large, morally uncaring.

We can't get morality from that.

Actually, it's the only place we can get morality from. Even Biblical morality is just human morality of a particular flavour presented through a fictional narrative.

[Immanuel Can]

I asked you if that's what you thought henry believed, and I wanted to know if that makes his belief in objective morality legitimate in your view.

Potentially, it does. Subjectivism, not even potentially.

So as long as you believe in a god of some kind, you are able to be objectively moral?

Not what I said. Please pay attention.

If you believe in a Supreme Being of some kind, you are able to explain what objective morality would be. You have grounds to argue for an objective conception of morality. That does NOT mean you're necessarily going to get it right: Muslims believe in a Supreme Being, but get it wrong. But it means that if you have the right conception of God, you might.

If you do not believe in any God, or if you believe in multiple "gods," as Socrates did, you're just plumb out of luck. No grounds exists for you to assert the existence of even one moral imperative. You're on your own, and making stuff up.

At least it cannot be disputed that nature exists, which is very much not the case with God.

So you say. And so you may say, until you meet Him. Then you'll change your mind.

In any case...

Nature does not care what you do. Nature has no opinions. Nature is not your friend, benevolently watching over you to make sure that only good happens to you, and that you do only good. Nature, as understood by secularists, is an impersonal, morally-uncaring force.

But human nature isn't, by and large, morally uncaring.

We can't get morality from that.

Actually, it's the only place we can get morality from.

How? Uncaring nature has made you what you are. Uncaring nature has no interest in your activities whatsoever. You have an odd twinge you call "moral concern," perhaps. That's just an accident, like everything else about you. You have no way at all to know if it means anything or not...and given that nature doesn't care, doesn't think, has no opinions, and has no instructions for you, the answer has to be "not."

[Alexiev]

In his pride and contempt for those who disagree with him, IC...

Not worth my time to comment on. Doesn't even start with a realistic premise.

You are correct. No comment you could make could obscure the fact that you consider any statement you deem false to be a "lie".

It's also likely that you have no interest in "Paradise Lost" because it is not scripture. You probably don't even agree with the Orthodox church about what is scripture-- even though they decided what the Bible comprises. Was the Church's decision "objective"? How would you know?

[Immanuel Can]

...you consider any statement you deem false to be a "lie".

So do you. That's definitional in the word "false."

It's also likely that you have no interest in "Paradise Lost"

Oh, dear. I warned you not to guess what I know and what I don't. But you had to go there again...

Well, at least you're keeping me entertained.

I won't disabuse you of your impression. It seems to me you're entited to it. Normally, I would give people the respect of the truth...but you seem so uninterested in it, that I think I'll just give you what you're asking for: tolerance, without the truth.

[Harbal]

Potentially, it does. Subjectivism, not even potentially.

So as long as you believe in a god of some kind, you are able to be objectively moral?

Not what I said. Please pay attention.

No need to get bossy.

If you believe in a Supreme Being of some kind, you are able to explain what objective morality would be. You have grounds to argue for an objective conception of morality.

I agree that a supreme being might have the authority and power to command you, but I don't see how its moral opinion would be any more than an opinion. Morality demands that we behave according to what we believe to be right, so if we believed the supreme beings morality wasn't right, we would not be behaving morally by complying with it. Therefore I reject your whole concept of objective morality, and you can tell your supreme being that I said so.

That does NOT mean you're necessarily going to get it right: Muslims believe in a Supreme Being, but get it wrong. But it means that if you have the right conception of God, you might.

That suggests that while you think henry has a basis for arguing for objective morality, he is still bound to get it wrong. Is that correct, or have I misunderstood you?

If you do not believe in any God, or if you believe in multiple "gods," as Socrates did, you're just plumb out of luck.

Do we know how many gods henry believes in, and therefor how lucky he is?

No grounds exists for you to assert the existence of even one moral imperative. You're on your own, and making stuff up.

You might say that, but it doesn't prevent me, nor anyone else, from asserting moral imperatives.

At least it cannot be disputed that nature exists, which is very much not the case with God.

So you say. And so you may say, until you meet Him. Then you'll change your mind.

I'm afraid your predictions of future events do not constitute an argument.

But we'll see.

Actually, it's the only place we can get morality from.

How? Uncaring nature has made you what you are.

Yes, uncaring nature has made me a caring human individual.

Uncaring nature has no interest in your activities whatsoever.

But my own human nature has a great interest in my activities.

You have an odd twinge you call "moral concern," perhaps. That's just an accident, like everything else about you. You have no way at all to know if it means anything or not.

I have the means to know if it means anything to me. On the other hand, I know what you claim to be God's will means nothing to me.

[Immanuel Can]

If you believe in a Supreme Being of some kind, you are able to explain what objective morality would be. You have grounds to argue for an objective conception of morality.

I agree that a supreme being might have the authority and power to command you, but I don't see how its moral opinion would be any more than an opinion.

That's only because you're not understanding what Supreme Being means. It means "the Origin of all things," which of course includes morality.

Morality demands that we behave according to what we believe to be right,

Not true. Morality demands we behave according to the moral truth. So even if Hitler believed genuinely that he was morally correct, he was still not.

I reject your whole concept of objective morality,

Which is exactly why you're left with no substance to any moral judgments at all. But that's your problem, of your own creation.

That does NOT mean you're necessarily going to get it right: Muslims believe in a Supreme Being, but get it wrong. But it means that if you have the right conception of God, you might.

That suggests that while you think henry has a basis for arguing for objective morality, he is still bound to get it wrong. Is that correct, or have I misunderstood you?

I'm saying it depends on what Henry knows about God. And since I don't know the answer to that, you're going to have to speak to him on that question.

No grounds exists for you to assert the existence of even one moral imperative. You're on your own, and making stuff up.

You might say that, but it doesn't prevent me, nor anyone else, from asserting moral imperatives.

You can assert them by force, but there's no way you can assert them by right.

So you say. And so you may say, until you meet Him. Then you'll change your mind.

I'm afraid your predictions of future events do not constitute an argument.

But we'll see.

How about God's promises concerning the future?

How? Uncaring nature has made you what you are.

Yes, uncaring nature has made me a caring human individual.

But didn't make "caring" right. So you might be very evil, for all you know: or more plausibly, simply a matter of moral indifference to nature, and to the universe you believe you inhabit.

Uncaring nature has no interest in your activities whatsoever.

But my own human nature has a great interest in my activities.

Only contingently, and only for you, and only for now. So it has no substance behind it. It's a momentary twinge, and nothing more. And that's if we believe your view of the universe.

[Alexiev]

...you consider any statement you deem false to be a "lie".

So do you. That's definitional in the word "false."

Nonsense. Lie: to utter an untruth knowingly, as with an attempt to deceive. (Dict. .com)

Stupidity (fortunately for you) does not a liar make. Your use of the word "lie" is incorrect, insulting, incharitable, and obnoxious. But not is not a lie if you believe it to be correct.

One point of interest: if I were ever called as a witness, I'm not sure I could swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I don't know "the whole truth"; my witness is from a particular perspective. However, I could swear not to lie. IC could not even do that (without lying).

[Immanuel Can]

...you consider any statement you deem false to be a "lie".

So do you. That's definitional in the word "false."

Nonsense. Lie: to utter an untruth knowingly, as with an attempt to deceive. (Dict. .com)

I refer you back to the better, more philosophical definition I gave you earlier.

One point of interest: if I were ever called as a witness, I'm not sure I could swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I don't know "the whole truth"; my witness is from a particular perspective.

Then you don't know anything about the truth, I guess. Ordinary folks can just walk on up and swear to tell the truth; but you can't?

Are you saying they're lying?

[Alexiev]

So do you. That's definitional in the word "false."

Nonsense. Lie: to utter an untruth knowingly, as with an attempt to deceive. (Dict. .com)

I refer you back to the better, more philosophical definition I gave you earlier.

One point of interest: if I were ever called as a witness, I'm not sure I could swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I don't know "the whole truth"; my witness is from a particular perspective.

Then you don't know anything about the truth, I guess. Ordinary folks can just walk on up and swear to tell the truth; but you can't?

Are you saying they're lying?

No intelligent or reasonable person could read my post and ask that question, since the answer is obvious. They are mistaken.

[Harbal]

If you believe in a Supreme Being of some kind, you are able to explain what objective morality would be. You have grounds to argue for an objective conception of morality.

I agree that a supreme being might have the authority and power to command you, but I don't see how its moral opinion would be any more than an opinion.

That's only because you're not understanding what Supreme Being means.

Strictly speaking, it's because I'm not understanding what you specifically mean by "Supreme Being". When one invents some notion or other of a supreme being, one is then in a position to invest it with whatever qualities and powers one so desires.

It means "the Origin of all things," which of course includes morality.

It must also include my taste in music, then.

Morality demands that we behave according to what we believe to be right,

Not true. Morality demands we behave according to the moral truth.

No, I think what I said is correct.

I reject your whole concept of objective morality,

Which is exactly why you're left with no substance to any moral judgments at all.

Actually, you are the one with no substance, that's why you have to look in your special book to find it.

But that's your problem, of your own creation.

It isn't a problem, and actually enables me to avoid the problem of having to base my moral decisions on what I do not believe to be morally correct.

That suggests that while you think henry has a basis for arguing for objective morality, he is still bound to get it wrong. Is that correct, or have I misunderstood you?

I'm saying it depends on what Henry knows about God. And since I don't know the answer to that, you're going to have to speak to him on that question.

Well henry appears to believe in a completely different god to you, so his morality doesn't have the legitimate basis that yours does; would you at least acknowledge that if you weren't terrified of alienating him?

I'm afraid your predictions of future events do not constitute an argument.

How about God's promises concerning the future?

If I wanted to worry about things like that I suppose I would become a Christian.

But my own human nature has a great interest in my activities.

Only contingently, and only for you,

Yep, that's morality for you. It's a very human thing.

[henry quirk]

You, from what I can gather, think that we own our own lives and have "natural rights" in respect of that ownership.

Yes. It's a bit more than that, but you have the gist.

From whence, exactly, come those rights, you seem unable to say, other than to insist it is somehow self evident that we do have them.

I'm a deist. I've said so many times, across many threads, including responses to you, in conversations with you. You can use the search function in the upper right corner of the forum to confirm this for yourself. So, as I've said before: natural rights, the absolute moral claim any person has to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, come from the Creator.

So, while Mannie and I do differ on some key details, we have in common...

*God exists and created all that is.

*Man is more than just meat (he has, or is, a free will; is morally discerning and therefore is capable of, and subject to, moral judgement; is ensouled).

*Morality is fact, not opinion, and pertains to what is and is not permissible between and among men.

I reckon Mannie and me are far closer than you or I, or you and him. He and I are largely on the page while you and me, or you and him, aren't even in the same book.

-----

Well henry appears to believe in a completely different god to you

Nope, there's only one. We differ in interpretation is all.

would you at least acknowledge that if you weren't terrified of alienating him?

You've been goin' back & forth with Mannie for years and you still don't know him, on any level.