Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Because of the above. Because subjective morality only really means “no morality at all.” And now you know my reasoning for saying that.

False. It means “problematic” morals or perhaps a certain inconclusiveness in the art (?) or discipline of moralizing.

[accelafine]

For fuck sake

[Gary Childress]

Because of the above. Because subjective morality only really means “no morality at all.” And now you know my reasoning for saying that.

False. It means “problematic” morals or perhaps a certain inconclusiveness in the art (?) or discipline of moralizing.

Well said. QED.

[Immanuel Can]

Because of the above. Because subjective morality only really means “no morality at all.” And now you know my reasoning for saying that.

False. It means “problematic” morals or perhaps a certain inconclusiveness in the art (?) or discipline of moralizing.

If it’s false, you can easily prove it. You don’t have to punt to “indeterminacy” at all.

Just give me that one axiom that every secular person is obligated to…or that ANY secular person is obligated to. And I’m proved wrong.

There’s no such thing. So morality is dead, in your version of the world.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The one advantage the misguided secular objectivist has over his subjectivist secularist fellow is that his morality can function. It may function well or badly, but it functions. That is not the case for the subjectivist: his moralizing does not function, but is 100% arbitrary, fluid, unstable, and useless for all important moral functions.

We have already determined, have we not, that secular objectivism does not allow for true coherency. By secular you mean moral ideas “not having been elaborated, as commandments by a Divine Authority, in religious literature”. The secularist does not, and perhaps cannot, refer to such a Authority. Maybe he is an atheist.

So it seems to me that this secularist would not declare that his defined morality is “objective”. He would be forced to admit his moral system is subjective.

Any morality, even if rationally inconsistent by Aristotelian standards (though other cultured had quite developed reasoning systems), can function.

So, necessarily, even a pure “subjectivist” can develop a morality that functions.

Also, to say his system “is 100% arbitrary, fluid, unstable, and useless for all important moral functions” does not seem right. Simply put, the major moralities that I have been exposed to, seem always to have, to attempt, rigorous internal coherency.

The fact is I can think of no system or person whose morality is “100% arbitrary, fluid, unstable, and useless for all important moral functions”.

Where do you get this stuff?!?

But clearly some moral systems, and many of us moderns, may employ sketchy, inconsistent, arbitrary and unstable moral premises.

But never is it “100%”.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just give me that one axiom that every secular person is obligated to…or that ANY secular person is obligated to. And I’m proved wrong.

But we have already determined that absent a Supernatural Authority, that it is not possible to establish moral axioms that operate absolutely objectively.

You are not wrong, as I have been indicating.

Where you are wrong is in asserting that you have, or have access to, and can produce, the absolute, objective moral rules backed up by that Supernatural Entity.

You have to make that Supernatural Entity appear and make the declarative statements.

Otherwise, any religionist can refer to any absolute system.

Yourself, you are unbelievable.

Any of this getting through?!?

[Immanuel Can]

You are not wrong, as I have been indicating.

Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

Where you are wrong is in asserting that you have, or have access to, and can produce, the absolute, objective moral rules backed up by that Supernatural Entity.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

[Gary Childress]

You are not wrong, as I have been indicating.

Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

Where you are wrong is in asserting that you have, or have access to, and can produce, the absolute, objective moral rules backed up by that Supernatural Entity.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral. God could proclaim genocide "moral" and according to you it would be moral. God could drown all of humanity in a flood and you would have to conclude that it was moral for God to do so because God is the root of all morality.

[Gary Childress]

Problem #1: You, IC do not know with absolute certainty whether there is a God or not.

Problem #2: If there is a God, you, IC do not know if the Bible is the authoritative source for God's expectations of all of humanity.

Problem #3: It does not logically follow that without a God there can be no such thing as morality, any more than to say that without God there can be no such thing as horses. The only argument you have amounts to: order in nature cannot exist without a sentient creator and it's not a sound deductive argument.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In regard to the fact of unreally, and as done say “mathematically impossible” levels of organization in this cosmos, could well point to an “organizing entity” or consciousness (in whatever case something unfathomable from where I sit).

Coded information is what appears.

And it is possible to assume, to hope, to strenuously propose that there is an entity, like the Christian Yahweh that lords over the Earth and this world’s fate…

… and that this entity established absolutely grounded morality for humankind.

It could even be wise to choose to believe this is so, and to subscribe to elaborated moral systems that are internally consistent, proven “sane” over time, and which require only 1) assent and 2) obedience (the subjugation of the will).

Largely, I describe here the option that I take in a sense out of respect for our traditions.

So, what is it that has penetrated and “exploded” what Immanuel so tightly clings to: certainty that it is this way. The belief in a defining, all-encompassing meta-narrative?

And in Immanuel’s case belief that produces a sheer Bible literalism.

Is it “the Devil’s work” or is it a necessary result of landing in the zone of human maturity, where what’s real and actual is seen and understood?

There are a few different things that occur in a man when a meta-narrative is punctured and when one collapses. It makes sense to talk about this, at least as I see things.

[Gary Childress]

In regard to the fact of unreally, and as done say “mathematically impossible” levels of organization in this cosmos, could well point to an “organizing entity” or consciousness (in whatever case something unfathomable from where I sit).

The operative word is "could". No one is denying that. What is being denied is that any mortal among us has (or even can have) irrefutable certainty regarding such matters.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In regard to the fact of unreally, and as done say “mathematically impossible” levels of organization in this cosmos, could well point to an “organizing entity” or consciousness (in whatever case something unfathomable from where I sit).

The operative word is "could". No one is denying that. What is being denied is that any mortal among us has (or even can have) irrefutable certainty regarding such matters.

True enough. That is one reason why the following stage becomes very interesting:

There are a few different things that occur in a man when a meta-narrative is punctured and when one collapses. It makes sense to talk about this, at least as I see things.

[Gary Childress]

In regard to the fact of unreally, and as done say “mathematically impossible” levels of organization in this cosmos, could well point to an “organizing entity” or consciousness (in whatever case something unfathomable from where I sit).

The operative word is "could". No one is denying that. What is being denied is that any mortal among us has (or even can have) irrefutable certainty regarding such matters.

True enough. That is one reason why the following stage becomes very interesting:

There are a few different things that occur in a man when a meta-narrative is punctured and when one collapses. It makes sense to talk about this, at least as I see things.

We're indeed talking about it now. Is your point to make an obvious point?

[Dubious]

Any of this getting through?!?

Based on who and what it refers to, this is one of the funniest questions I ever encountered! Any expectation of that is like trying to retrieve a pocket watch that just dropped into a black hole!

[MikeNovack]

quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=781590 time=1753389598 user_id=9431]
But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.
[/quote]

No, you aren't quite getting my point.

You are saying (think you are saying) a subjectively based set of moral laws is impossible BUT that you OBJECTIVELY have access to a set of objective moral laws. I'm saying "wrong", you SUBJECTIVELY have access to a set (of supposedly) objective moral laws. These are all matters of your beliefs, that there is a god (of a particular sort), that this god is the only god, that among other things this god has given you set of objectively true moral laws.

I'm not saying that any of these beliefs are not true, just that they are SUBJECTIVE truths. True for you but not necessarily true for me or anybody else. We might believe in different gods or none at all. Divine authority could be the basis for a set of objective moral laws only if we were all agreed about the truth of this divine authority. And we clearly are not.

BTW -- I have a very different perspective on our "instincts". As a successful social animal, we are born "programed" to learn certain things(by programed, I mean initial connections between the nodes of the neural net that is our brain). Not with a language, but "learn a language", not a set of moral laws but "learn the moral laws suited to a small group of omnivores". I believe this goes back long before we were human (that we share this with P. troglodytes and P. paniscus -- in other words, their babies are "primed" to learn "how to be a good chimpanzee" or "how to be a good bonobo").
I believe our babies are born primed to learn "how to be a good human" BUT this is in the context of possible interactions in that small group of hunter-gatherers. I would not call such morality "instinctive" but "intuitive" (learned). BUT -- for the past few thousand years many of us have lived in much larger, more complicated societies. The details of the situation in which we are called upon to make a moral choice might not match anything possible in that small group, repeated interaction between the same individuals, all known to us.

I am adding this just to point out that your belief "our basic instincts are evil" is part of your subjective truths. I don't share them.