Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:29 pm You've swallowed all that Kantian nonsense and it has made you unable to reason. I'm sorry to say, Kant and all his disciples are a bit insane.

A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.

If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
-BxLiv CPR

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:35 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:24 pm These answers don't explain what the good or goodness is. They don't explain what about a thing or action makes it good. And they don't explain why morality is objective - independent from opinion.

Your premise is faulty again, in the way you frame the objection. The premise assumes that "good" is an adjectival quality that exists independent and prior to any ascription of it to God.

Now, it's true that good exists prior to the mundane objects or human beings of whom we sometimes predicate it. But God, being eternal, cannot be assigned any predicate that pre-exists Him. There are no such prior-existing things, including "goodness." It exists eternally too, as an attribute of the character of God. So there's no way to explain the ultimate meaning of "goodness" without reference to God.

As for human actions, they are good or bad depending on their harmony or disharmony with the character and intentions of God. And the reason morality is objective is that it is grounded in the character of God, which is always right and does not change. Moreover, no Authority less total would be capable of grounding an objective morality. But God is.

Human "opinion" is only as good as the extent to which it reflects the Divine assessment of an action or thing.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am And here, in a nutshell, is the poverty of this aspect of theological 'reasoning'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am 1 An abstract noun is not the name of any thing of any kind anywhere. (Or are we still Platonists?) So if this god is goodness, then this god is not a thing of any kind anywhere.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:35 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:24 pm These answers don't explain what the good or goodness is. They don't explain what about a thing or action makes it good. And they don't explain why morality is objective - independent from opinion.

Your premise is faulty again, in the way you frame the objection. The premise assumes that "good" is an adjectival quality that exists independent and prior to any ascription of it to God.

Now, it's true that good exists prior to the mundane objects or human beings of whom we sometimes predicate it. But God, being eternal, cannot be assigned any predicate that pre-exists Him. There are no such prior-existing things, including "goodness." It exists eternally too, as an attribute of the character of God. So there's no way to explain the ultimate meaning of "goodness" without reference to God.

As for human actions, they are good or bad depending on their harmony or disharmony with the character and intentions of God. And the reason morality is objective is that it is grounded in the character of God, which is always right and does not change. Moreover, no Authority less total would be capable of grounding an objective morality. But God is.

Human "opinion" is only as good as the extent to which it reflects the Divine assessment of an action or thing.

And here, in a nutshell, is the poverty of this aspect of theological 'reasoning'.

If 'good' isn't a predicate - a property ascribed to this god - then the 'is' in 'this god is good' seems to be the is of identity, so that 'good' is an abstract noun - the name of something: the good or goodness. And you say 'God' and 'good' are names for the same entity: this god and 'goodness' are the same thing. And this has two consequences.

1 An abstract noun is not the name of any thing of any kind anywhere. (Or are we still Platonists?) So if this god is goodness, then this god is not a thing of any kind anywhere.

2 Substitute any other fictional abstract thing for 'goodness', and the illogicality of deriving objectivity from it is obvious. 'This god is beauty, so beauty is objective - the beautiful is that which is consonant with the beauty of this god - and this is independent from opinion.' (Why?)

• God is an Impossibility
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:02 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:35 am
Your premise is faulty again, in the way you frame the objection. The premise assumes that "good" is an adjectival quality that exists independent and prior to any ascription of it to God.

Now, it's true that good exists prior to the mundane objects or human beings of whom we sometimes predicate it. But God, being eternal, cannot be assigned any predicate that pre-exists Him. There are no such prior-existing things, including "goodness." It exists eternally too, as an attribute of the character of God. So there's no way to explain the ultimate meaning of "goodness" without reference to God.

As for human actions, they are good or bad depending on their harmony or disharmony with the character and intentions of God. And the reason morality is objective is that it is grounded in the character of God, which is always right and does not change. Moreover, no Authority less total would be capable of grounding an objective morality. But God is.

Human "opinion" is only as good as the extent to which it reflects the Divine assessment of an action or thing.

And here, in a nutshell, is the poverty of this aspect of theological 'reasoning'.

If 'good' isn't a predicate - a property ascribed to this god - then the 'is' in 'this god is good' seems to be the is of identity, so that 'good' is an abstract noun - the name of something: the good or goodness. And you say 'God' and 'good' are names for the same entity: this god and 'goodness' are the same thing. And this has two consequences.

1 An abstract noun is not the name of any thing of any kind anywhere. (Or are we still Platonists?) So if this god is goodness, then this god is not a thing of any kind anywhere.

2 Substitute any other fictional abstract thing for 'goodness', and the illogicality of deriving objectivity from it is obvious. 'This god is beauty, so beauty is objective - the beautiful is that which is consonant with the beauty of this god - and this is independent from opinion.' (Why?)

Note the difference,
in theology and theism, the objective moral laws are imposed by God because God commanded it to be so as stated in some whatever holy texts which is accepted based on faith [belief without proof and justified reason].

How can God's commanded 'highest good' be 'good' when God's commands condoned slavery and even killing of non-believers under vague conditions of threats as in Islam plus a whole loads of other evil laden sanctions.
In addition, God's commanded objective moral laws is enforced with a threat of hell for non-compliance.

The final nail to the theists' moral coffin is God is an illusion and it impossible to exists as a real entity.

• God is an Impossibility
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

In my case, I claim absolute moral laws [or moral facts] are necessary to ensure the efficient workings of a Framework and System of Morality and Work.
This absolute moral laws as I had repeated many times are only be used a GUIDE and never be enforced in any way at all.
The approach to ensure the Framework and System of Morality and Work is working efficient is to develop the moral faculty and function within the brain of the individuals naturally and in a fool proof manner.
What is so wrong with this approach?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts. That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

That's why your approach is wrong.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:20 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts. That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

That's why your approach is wrong.

I really find this error puzzling.
It is quite common and can be found in another Philosophy Forum I frequent.
It is more than puzzling but shocking how anyone could fail to notice the problems here.

What sort of reality do these people live in? And it is not as if people proposing such an idea have the slightest argument in its favour. They seem to bluster on as if it is a simple undeniable fact; but this ignores human diversity, anthropology and history.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am There are only moral rules that a community or society may adopt - and that all human communities have adopted - because there are good reasons to do so.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am Those rules can change, and sometimes have changed, through our history; attitudes towards slavery and homosexuality are examples. So the word 'absolute' is inappropriate. It means fixed and unchanging.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am That's why your approach is wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am If 'good' isn't a predicate...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:21 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:48 am If 'good' isn't a predicate...

But, of course, "good" is a predicate...yet not merely a predicate, in the unique case of God. It is a predication, but it is also an attribute.

Jesus said exactly the same thing: "There is none good but God alone," He said. In other words, for all other entities, "good" is a MERE predication. But in relation to God, it is not MERElY a predication, but an inherent attribute as well.

God is not merely "one among other good things," He is the prototype of goodness, in association with which all other goods are merely derivative.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:45 pm You say goodness can be a property - something that belongs to the god or the action - that exists regardless of what anyone thinks. I say that to claim something is morally good - or just good - can only be to express a value-judgment about that thing - and can never be to make a factual claim about it. And a value-judgement can't be objective.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:41 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:45 pm You say goodness can be a property - something that belongs to the god or the action - that exists regardless of what anyone thinks. I say that to claim something is morally good - or just good - can only be to express a value-judgment about that thing - and can never be to make a factual claim about it. And a value-judgement can't be objective.

You're presuming, not proving your conclusion there, Pete. You say there are no moral facts...but on what basis? That you don't know them? How does that serve the turn?

You go on to insist, "A value judgment cannot be objective." How do we know that? Only if we presume that there is, and can be, no prototype for any moral quality. But how do we know that? We don't, in fact.

The only answer as to whether there can be comes to us from ontology, prior to our ethical pronouncement. If our ontology holds that there is no God, then all moral claims are exactly what you say they are -- merely human, merely arbitrary, merely conventional, and devoid of reference to any objective reality. But then, if one is fully honest with oneself, one would have to say that moral claims are falsehoods...they predicate something of objects and actions that are simply incapable of bearing such predications.

And that's what Hume thought, too.

But if our ontology tells us that this world is not accidental, but is the deliberate creation of God, who has an intrinsic moral nature, then the items and actions in this created world are teleological in nature...they have a purpose, a role, and a designed outcome in being placed as they are. To fulfill that creatorially-assigned role is "good." To fail to fulfil that creatorially-intended role is "evil." And there are objective facts about those relations, derived from their proximity or distance to the Divine intention...whether we always know them or not.

In other words, if human moral epistemology is flawed, fallible, imperfect, then correcting it means bringing it back into line with reality. And the reality with which it needs to be brought back into line is the intention and purposes of the Creator. Human moral epistemology is not determinative of the truth about morality, and morality remains objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:42 pm We've done this to death.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:42 pm I've explained countless times, upside down and back to front, why your argument is fallacious, and you're impervious to reason.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:42 pm We've done this to death. I've explained countless times, upside down and back to front, why your argument is fallacious,

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:41 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:20 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:32 am The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts. That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

That's why your approach is wrong.

I really find this error puzzling.
It is quite common and can be found in another Philosophy Forum I frequent.
It is more than puzzling but shocking how anyone could fail to notice the problems here.

What sort of reality do these people live in? And it is not as if people proposing such an idea have the slightest argument in its favour. They seem to bluster on as if it is a simple undeniable fact; but this ignores human diversity, anthropology and history.

Agreed. I reckon there are two reasons why people are convinced morality is objective - that there are moral facts.

First, our moral judgements matter to most of us, so that to say they're simply subjective moral judgements seems to trivialise them.

And second, it's the nature of moral judgements that we make them universally. So if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it always was and will be morally wrong everywhere. It would be morally inconsistent to think otherwise.