Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

*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.

In my post above about "Paradise Lost" I purport that Milton questions whether God's moral authority is de facto or de jure.

I'm just curious: who told you that Paradise Lost was an authoritative treatise on theology, rather than a epic fiction? Since NO theologians refer to Paradise Lost as an authoritative text, why are you attempting to use it as if it were one?

Isn't it a bit like using Shakespeare as a medical text?

If we say, "God us beneficent and just", we must mean something more than, "God is God." Otherwise the statement is meaningless. So if these moral terms describe God and his rule there are several possibilities:

1) God rules and is all powerful. Therefore his will is law. (De facto)

2) We can derive moral principles apart from God, and we find that He is perfect in His compliance with them. (De jure).

There may be other possibilities. If so, what are they?

This really isn't anything but the old, failed "Euthyprho Dilemma," which we've already showed, by quoting directly from it, depends on polytheism, and makes the false-dichotomy error of severing who God is from what God desires for us. But the Supreme Being, by virtue of being supreme, never finds it necessary to do or to approve anything that is not precisely consonant with His own nature. We humans do, precisely because we are not good, do not always have good desires, and lack the power and wisdom to make our intentions real. But God is perfectly able to allign His character and intentions into the fabric of what we rightly recognize (when we recognize it, and whether we want to or not) as the right.

So there's no sense in saying, "Is it good because God wants it, or does God want it because it's good." The answer is, "God wants X because that's who God is, and He is good." So the de-jure/de-facto distinction is meaningless in reference to God. It posits an absurdity: either a Supreme Being who is not good, or a good that "floats free" of the Supreme Being and exists prior to His judgment.

Neither one makes any sense: the former supposes we, contingent, created, limited and immoral beings, can somehow pass judgment morally on the Entity that created the very concept of morality, on the basis of that same morality; and the other actually implies that a thing called "morality" exists prior to the Supreme Being, and thus has to be "the supremer supreme reality."

That's just how off-point the whole question is. It's clearly absurd, and reflects a failure to identify the word "God" with anything.

[henry quirk]

Well, of course I think *X is wrong but that's just my opinion, said no **one ever if it were his or her keister on the line.

Everyone is a moral realist (at least when it comes to themselves).

*X = murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud

**including murderers, slavers, rapists, thieves, and conmen (and subjectivists, nihilists, anti-moralists, and anti-realists)

[henry quirk]

No, the two -- God and moral reality -- are part & parcel.

[Harbal]

Well, there is, actually...but since you don't think so, I think you should at least grasp the meaning of the concepts you aim to debate.

We are debating morality, and I do have a grasp of the concept, and it has nothing to do with religion or God.

That's assumptive, on your part.

No it isn't; I'm speaking from experience.

You've certainly done nothing to demonstrate it.

I have tried to explain it to you at great lengths, and you just reject everything I say on principle, but "demonstrating" it isn't of particular interest to me. My principle purpose is just to make the point that objective moral truth is a false concept. There can be no such thing; it is a logical impossibility, and the existence, or otherwise, of God makes no difference to the fact.

At most, all you've succeeded in suggesting is that morality is nothing at all

I've told you that morality is very important to me, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

because Subjectivism has no substance, and is therefore the belief that morality has no stability, no durability, no duty, and no relevance to others, to a society, to a judgment or a system of justice, or to facts about the world.

Morality relates to facts about human beings, not the world. The fact that human beings have the capacity for formulating concepts such as fairness and justice, and have an innate sense of right and wrong.

But we are free, or should be, to disagree with any prevailing moral consensus within our society, and to arrive at our own moral judgements.

"Should"? There's no "should" in your world.

Of course there is. "Should", in my world, is what moral quality needs to be achieved in order to match my ideals.

"Should" is only the majority trying to force or fool you into doing something they want.

Or you trying to fool me into believing what you want me to believe.

I don't see what nihilism has got to do with it. The word doesn't frighten me, if that is why you keep mentioning it.

"Frighten"? No. I'm just pointing out the only logical conclusion of Subjectivism. That's what it's called: "Nihilism." You can like it or not, and it makes no difference to the result, if that's where the logic of your position points.

I suppose I am a nihilist in that I do not see our existence as having any intrinsic purpose, or the existence of the universe, for that matter. But that does not mean there are not things that I find personally worthwhile, and morality is one of those things.

My feelings about morality aren't fictional, they are real.

Feelings create no obligation.

Only a person who is incapable of emotion would think that.

I would say informed and influenced by, rather than indoctrinated. But I am able to modify my moral views based on my own moral sense as well.

All your society has done, then, is to suggest options you're totally free to disregard.

I imagine you think you are making a point, but I don't know what it could be.

Do you see how absurd that is? There's absolutely no use left for the word "moral."

Morality is a purely human practice, and is based on human sentiment and emotion. The founders of your religion have taken the concept and woven it into its fabric, but they have merely created a fiction that you and your like have bought into and are trying to sell on to whoever is willing to buy it. I'm not in the market for your religious doctrine.

[Harbal]

Well, of course I think *X is wrong but that's just my opinion, said no **one ever if it were his or her keister on the line.

Everyone is a moral realist (at least when it comes to themselves).

*X = murder, slavery, rape, theft, fraud

**including murderers, slavers, rapists, thieves, and conmen (and subjectivists, nihilists, anti-moralists, and anti-realists)

Isn't it time for you to go back to sleep, henry?

[henry quirk]

Isn't it time for you to go back to sleep, henry?

No, my fellow moral realist, I'm back and I don't expect to hibernate another six months any time soon.

Aren't you glad?

[Immanuel Can]

We are debating morality, and I do have a grasp of the concept, and it has nothing to do with religion or God.

That's assumptive, on your part.

No it isn't; I'm speaking from experience.

Not having an experience of something does not rationalize with disbelief in that something. I've never been to Newcastle: but I have no basis from that for disbelieving in its existence. I just have to admit I have no such experience.

You've certainly done nothing to demonstrate it.

I have tried to explain it to you at great lengths,...

No, "demonstrate." "Prove." "Give reasons why others should agree." You've done nothing on that.

At most, all you've succeeded in suggesting is that morality is nothing at all

I've told you that morality is very important to me,

That's like, "Unicorns are very important to me." It simply cannot be true that something you genuinely don't think exists can be "very important."

because Subjectivism has no substance, and is therefore the belief that morality has no stability, no durability, no duty, and no relevance to others, to a society, to a judgment or a system of justice, or to facts about the world.

Morality relates to facts about human beings,

Which fact? Not the mere fact that they believe in morality -- because you don't, or if you do, it's totally arbitrarily and with no evidence at all, and contrary to your own claims that it's merely a twinge.

But we are free, or should be, to disagree with any prevailing moral consensus within our society, and to arrive at our own moral judgements.

"Should"? There's no "should" in your world.

Of course there is. "Should", in my world, is what moral quality needs to be achieved in order to match my ideals.

"Your ideals"? You don't believe there are any. There are just twinges.

I suppose I am a nihilist in that I do not see our existence as having any intrinsic purpose, or the existence of the universe, for that matter.

Or morals. You can't insist on morals in a meaningless universe. The most you can say is, "For now, this is what I feel like doing."

Don't be surprised if you don't feel particularly proud of that, and if nobody claps you on that back as a "moral" person. You're just stumbling around, following your twinges. There isn't anything heroic about that, for sure.

My feelings about morality aren't fictional, they are real.

Feelings create no obligation.

Only a person who is incapable of emotion would think that.

Twinges, you mean. I'm incapable of superificial twinges...or rather, when I have such, I'm incapable of thinking they can bind me to any duty.

I would say informed and influenced by, rather than indoctrinated. But I am able to modify my moral views based on my own moral sense as well.

All your society has done, then, is to suggest options you're totally free to disregard.

I imagine you think you are making a point, but I don't know what it could be.

Yeah, you can see it. Your society is just telling you things you could choose to do, but don't have to, and can freely reject without being immoral. Likewise, they can do anything to you, and so long as they want to regard it as moral, it's moral.

What a morally bankrupt view.

[Harbal]

Isn't it time for you to go back to sleep, henry?

No, my fellow moral realist, I'm back and I don't expect to hibernate another six months any time soon.

Aren't you glad?

Your presence is not without its benefits, henry.

[henry quirk]

Your presence is not without its benefits, henry.

I feel the same about you: you're a cautionary tale.

[Harbal]

That's assumptive, on your part.

No it isn't; I'm speaking from experience.

Not having an experience of something does not rationalize with disbelief in that something. I've never been to Newcastle: but I have no basis from that for disbelieving in its existence. I just have to admit I have no such experience.

Well I have been to Newcastle, and can tell you that you haven't missed much.

=IC]

I have tried to explain it to you at great lengths,...

No, "demonstrate." "Prove." "Give reasons why others should agree." You've done nothing on that.

And that is a measure of what, exactly? I haven't seen much agreement with your point of view, and certainly less than with mine.

I've told you that morality is very important to me,

That's like, "Unicorns are very important to me."

Yes, I'm aware that mythical entities are important to you.

It simply cannot be true that something you genuinely don't think exists can be "very important."

I know for certain that morality exists.

Morality relates to facts about human beings,

Which fact?

The fact that I mentioned and you left out of the quote.

Of course there is. "Should", in my world, is what moral quality needs to be achieved in order to match my ideals.

"Your ideals"? You don't believe there are any. There are just twinges.

No, I do have moral ideals, whereas you only have God's twinges to reference, and God isn't even real.

I suppose I am a nihilist in that I do not see our existence as having any intrinsic purpose, or the existence of the universe, for that matter.

Or morals. You can't insist on morals in a meaningless universe. "

Morals only exist within human consciousness, so it is no use looking for them anywhere else.

Don't be surprised if you don't feel particularly proud of that, and if nobody claps you on that back as a "moral" person. You're just stumbling around, following your twinges. There isn't anything heroic about that, for sure.

I'm fine with that; virtue is its own reward.

Only a person who is incapable of emotion would think that.

Twinges, you mean. I'm incapable of superificial twinges...or rather, when I have such, I'm incapable of thinking they can bind me to any duty.

No, I don't mean that, but if twinges are all you have experience of, there is no common frame of reference to enable me to describe what a genuine emotion is.

I imagine you think you are making a point, but I don't know what it could be.

Yeah, you can see it.

I wouldn't have said I couldn't if I could.

[Immanuel Can]

No it isn't; I'm speaking from experience.

Not having an experience of something does not rationalize with disbelief in that something. I've never been to Newcastle: but I have no basis from that for disbelieving in its existence. I just have to admit I have no such experience.

Well I have been to Newcastle, and can tell you that you haven't missed much.

The football. And brown ale.

=IC]

I have tried to explain it to you at great lengths,...

No, "demonstrate." "Prove." "Give reasons why others should agree." You've done nothing on that.

And that is a measure of what, exactly?

Of knowing what you're talking about.

It simply cannot be true that something you genuinely don't think exists can be "very important."

I know for certain that morality exists.

You know that people insist on deluding themselves that their subjective feelings amount to morality. And I agree...they delude themselves. But you also believe that this self-delusion deserves the term "morality." And that's absurd, because morality is what we look to for answers everybody can access, and can inform society, and justice, and real life. And Subjectivism has nothing for that.

Morality relates to facts about human beings,

Which fact?

The fact that I mentioned and you left out of the quote.

So no facts at all.

Of course there is. "Should", in my world, is what moral quality needs to be achieved in order to match my ideals.

"Your ideals"? You don't believe there are any. There are just twinges.

No, I do have moral ideals,

No, you have feelings...twinges. And you have no basis even to know what they mean.

Morals only exist within human consciousness, so it is no use looking for them anywhere else.

Right: so they're fantasies. Exactly what I said you believe.

Only a person who is incapable of emotion would think that.

Twinges, you mean. I'm incapable of superificial twinges...or rather, when I have such, I'm incapable of thinking they can bind me to any duty.

No, I don't mean that, but if twinges are all you have experience of, there is no common frame of reference to enable me to describe what a genuine emotion is.

You don't know what a "genuine emotion" is. You've got no objective means of judging that. All you have is your own compulsions, which you insist apply to nobody else...so you've got nothing moral going on, even if you try to decorate it what that honourific. A person who's simply following his twinges is amoral, not moral.

[Age]

Not having an experience of something does not rationalize with disbelief in that something. I've never been to Newcastle: but I have no basis from that for disbelieving in its existence. I just have to admit I have no such experience.

Well I have been to Newcastle, and can tell you that you haven't missed much.

The football. And brown ale.

=IC]

No, "demonstrate." "Prove." "Give reasons why others should agree." You've done nothing on that.

And that is a measure of what, exactly?

Of knowing what you're talking about.

It simply cannot be true that something you genuinely don't think exists can be "very important."

I know for certain that morality exists.

You know that people insist on deluding themselves that their subjective feelings amount to morality. And I agree...they delude themselves. But you also believe that this self-delusion deserves the term "morality." And that's absurd, because morality is what we look to for answers everybody can access, and can inform society, and justice, and real life. And Subjectivism has nothing for that.

Which fact?

The fact that I mentioned and you left out of the quote.

So no facts at all.

"Your ideals"? You don't believe there are any. There are just twinges.

No, I do have moral ideals,

No, you have feelings...twinges. And you have no basis even to know what they mean.

Morals only exist within human consciousness, so it is no use looking for them anywhere else.

Right: so they're fantasies. Exactly what I said you believe.

Twinges, you mean. I'm incapable of superificial twinges...or rather, when I have such, I'm incapable of thinking they can bind me to any duty.

No, I don't mean that, but if twinges are all you have experience of, there is no common frame of reference to enable me to describe what a genuine emotion is.

You don't know what a "genuine emotion" is. You've got no objective means of judging that. All you have is your own compulsions, which you insist apply to nobody else...so you've got nothing moral going on, even if you try to decorate it what that honourific. A person who's simply following his twinges is amoral, not moral.

So, what have you got "immanuel.can", objectively, for your morals, besides, of course, the twinges and emotions within that body?

If you do not answer this question, then this shows and reveals a great deal about 'you'.

[Harbal]

Not having an experience of something does not rationalize with disbelief in that something. I've never been to Newcastle: but I have no basis from that for disbelieving in its existence. I just have to admit I have no such experience.

Well I have been to Newcastle, and can tell you that you haven't missed much.

The football. And brown ale.

=IC]

No, "demonstrate." "Prove." "Give reasons why others should agree." You've done nothing on that.

And that is a measure of what, exactly?

Of knowing what you're talking about.

It simply cannot be true that something you genuinely don't think exists can be "very important."

I know for certain that morality exists.

You know that people insist on deluding themselves that their subjective feelings amount to morality. And I agree...they delude themselves. But you also believe that this self-delusion deserves the term "morality." And that's absurd, because morality is what we look to for answers everybody can access, and can inform society, and justice, and real life. And Subjectivism has nothing for that.

Which fact?

The fact that I mentioned and you left out of the quote.

So no facts at all.

"Your ideals"? You don't believe there are any. There are just twinges.

No, I do have moral ideals,

No, you have feelings...twinges. And you have no basis even to know what they mean.

Morals only exist within human consciousness, so it is no use looking for them anywhere else.

Right: so they're fantasies. Exactly what I said you believe.

Twinges, you mean. I'm incapable of superificial twinges...or rather, when I have such, I'm incapable of thinking they can bind me to any duty.

No, I don't mean that, but if twinges are all you have experience of, there is no common frame of reference to enable me to describe what a genuine emotion is.

You don't know what a "genuine emotion" is. You've got no objective means of judging that. All you have is your own compulsions, which you insist apply to nobody else...so you've got nothing moral going on, even if you try to decorate it what that honourific. A person who's simply following his twinges is amoral, not moral.

I wonder who you think you are convincing.

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder who you think you are convincing.

Well, not you, apparently.

But I should be. This is, after all, a forum for discussion based on reason, not ideally a place where people merely post their feelings. There are lots of other sites for that. So if I'm not convincing you, why not?

But let me ask you this.

Suppose you knew a man who was entirely guided by his impulses. While he felt driven to obey them, nobody else even saw any grounds for them; and his visions had no relation to the real world, were not based on any empirical facts, and followed no line of rationality. There was literally no locatable basis for anything he perceived or believed; and yet he always acted in accordance with whatever these impulses directed him to do.

Would the word that people would rightly apply to such a man be "moral," or "delusional"?

[Harbal]

I wonder who you think you are convincing.

Well, not you, apparently.

But I should be. This is, after all, a forum for discussion based on reason,

Exactly, but you are using it to promote your religious beliefs. You don't bring any reason to the forum, you just point to the Bible.

not ideally a place where people merely post their feelings. There are lots of other sites for that. So if I'm not convincing you, why not?

Posting opinions about feelings is not posting one's feelings. And the reason you are not convincing me of anything is because I don't subscribe to religion, mythology, or superstition. I'm sure there are lots of other sites that specialise in those things.

But let me ask you this.

Suppose you knew a man who was entirely guided by his impulses. While he felt driven to obey them, nobody else even saw any grounds for them; and his visions had no relation to the real world, were not based on any empirical facts, and followed no line of rationality. There was literally no locatable basis for anything he perceived or believed; and yet he always acted in accordance with whatever these impulses directed him to do.

Would the word that people would rightly apply to such a man be "moral," or "delusional"?

You concocted this strange character, so why are you asking me about him?