What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

My contention is that the axioms needed come from ontology. Ontology precedes ethics. To clarify that claim, we might say that it's impossible to ask "What should we do?" without first answers questions like "With what?" " What's here?" "What's real, in this world in which we live?"

With the exception of seeing everything in terms of some, "we," I essentially agree with that view. Only individuals have the capacity to make choices. If an individual understands what is right, he can choose to do right, even if the entire world of humanity disagrees with him.

Yes, that's what I meant...not that there is any "we" in moral responsibility (or response-ability, in fact), but that "we" are all in the same pickle as individuals.

We agree.

Is everything here mere matter and energy, put into place by impersonal forces?

Wrong question. Slipping in, "put into place by some impersonal force," assumes without basis that existence is contingent.

Not "without basis." It's manifest that not everything here, if anything, is "necessary," so it is, by all accounts contingent.

Is what we see a vale of deception created by a Gnostic Demiurge to deceive and entrap us? Or is it the intentional creation of a good God?

This is the same baseless assumption framed as false dichotomy. "Is everything created by God or the Devil," which assumes it was created by something.

No, no...that's unfair. I granted your alternative, RC...that maybe everything is just here from some "primordial vacuum" or something like that...something material, purposeless and impersonal. It was at least a trichotomy, not a dichotomy -- and if you have a fourth option, I'll happily include it in my account.

It is not too difficult to understand why the basic principles of mechanics, mathematics, the general sciences, language (reading and writing), even finance (what money is and how to use it) or even food preparation are important to one's life and why one would want to know and use those principles. Why would anyone want to know and use moral principles?

Well, that glosses over a very remarkable fact, surely. And that is that the basic principles of this reality are comprehensible, in just the ways you describe. We live in a world constructed according to laws and regularities that are predictable, rational, and (marvel of marvels) comprehensible to the human mind. That is surely astonishing, and a thing we would never expect ...

There is another baseless assumption here. Existence is certainly understandable and the means of that understanding is reason, but to say, the "world constructed according to laws and regularities that are predictable," assumes something "constructed," existence and imposed the laws and regularities on it; but there is no basis for that assumption.

No, no...again, I'm not asking you to "assume" anything. I'm pointing out what is called "an argument to the best explanation." I'm saying we need to view the comprehensibility and rationality of the universe as data, and inductively decide from that data what the best explanation for that particular kind of data would be. That's all.

Whatever exists has to have some nature.

Now, THERE'S an assumption! Why should we think that anything had to exist at all? Why not chaotic particles of matter floating in space, and entirely incomprehensible in their relations, and with no entity to posit "existence" of them at all. Or why not a universe in which even matter itself had no coherence, but fell into its ultimate sub-elements, whatever they are, and dissolved into nothingness?

The fact that the universe has the highly ordered and structured, law-governed nature it has has to be, to any impartial observer, a fact of total wonderment. It did not have to be that way, and in fact, it did not have to "be" at all.

The moral principles of which you speak also would make no sense in the world as an accidental generation of impersonal and indescribable forces.

I presume you mean by, "accidental," the, "unexpected," "unplanned," "unintended," "is, with no explanation," or "not teleological." Such would certainly be, "impersonal," but hardly, "indescribable," since that is exactly what science does.

But that begs the question above. Is the reason that science CAN describe the universe evidence that the universe has a structured, ordered, purposive nature? It would seem so.

The physical universe certainly exists unplanned and unintended and with nothing teleological about it

,
"Certainly"? I have to ask for the certification behind this "certainty" word of yours. What has made you so "certain," RC?

You certainly do not believe God's existence is due to some preceding plan, intention, explanation or reason, do you? You certainly don't believe God's nature was imposed on God by something else, do you? You believe in the eternal uncaused just as I do, you just personify it and call it God.

I've had this argument with people extensively elsewhere, so I'll keep this response short, RC. There are only two options rationally possible here: either the universe is eternal, or the universe had a starting point. Fair enough? If something has a starting point, then it's not eternal. If it's eternal, it has no starting point. So that's analytic and necessary, obviously.

So which is it? The universe is not eternal, we know, because science tells us empirically. No serious scientist doubts that anymore. All the remaining proposals for how a universe could come to exist without a singular starting point are presently flawed mathematical projections, not empirically verifiable theories.

That which has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning. It had to have a cause. The only point of debate left is "What cause?" And since none of us can go back to the Singularity at the start of the universe and make empirical tests, we are obliged to use "argument to the best explanation" to decide the case.

But purpose is not something imposed on existence, it is derived from existence, as you said, "ontology precedes ethics," because the source of all purpose and values is that which has purpose and values: living, conscious, volitional human beings.

This is a fallacy, RC. It's like reasoning, "Unicorns must exist, because human beings are the source of all unicorns." And while it is true that no creature IMAGINES unicorns but human beings, it does not follow that what humans imagine is real. Non sequitur.

You've mistaken the claim: "Value is a human imagining," for a proof of "value is objectively real." The two do not connect, unless you're prepared to stipulate that "real" includes the imaginary.

I suppose if you believe any principles are for the purpose of what, "we," should do or not do, they would not have much ulitility, unless you were a collectivist living in a commune.

Or just an ordinary person living in a community. Which we all are, you included, as you at least have a wife, even if the two of you live on the moon.

...to be as fully human as possible, not merely to survive.

Which of us has certainty about this? What does it mean to "live fully," and what is genuinely "possible"? What makes us "human"? Is it you who know these secrets and will tell us, RC? Or are you deferring to another authority?

If it's the former, I beg to see your credentials. If it's the latter...well, I'd be surprised if you wanted to own it.

I know your premises are different from mine, and given them, it is not possible we can agree on what such life principles would be, but however much we disagree, I at least respect the fact you have principles and live by them because you believe there is something worth living for. In this age of nihilistic hedonism, that is important.

Hugely. Likewise.

And it's one of the things that makes you so interesting to talk to. You're not another post-Derridean blatherer, who claims he has no principles and that's his principle. You have views, and you defend them with integrity. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you, even when we differ...and often, especially then.

[Immanuel Can]

For if we both say (as indeed, we do) that the impulse to free will or to not being enslaved is deeply rooted in the nature of being human, and if we regard that as significant (as we both do), then what do we say of the human impulse for justice? Does that not also, at least potentially, represent a signal from the conscience that justice is of that same natural order, and is just as essential as freedom itself?

I say the outrage that comes from bein' abused and the desire for justice or revenge is part & parcel of ownness.

Well, that could be true. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Maybe our sense of justice is derived from our sense of rightful autonomy, in some way. That's an intriguing suggestion.

But from whatever it is derived, it can have no fulfillment in a Deistic world...or after. So we are saddled with a longing for a justice that cannot ever come.

Like out conscience, it agitates us; but unlike what you and I believe about the human sense of a right to personal autonomy, it does not refer to anything actual...it is an itch that will never be scratched. But if our desire for justice is just "an itch that can never be scratched," then what makes us think our "itch" for autonomy is any more profound, or refers to any reality, anymore than the justice "itch"?

It seems to me that if we want to make the argument (and I think we both do) that the autonomy yearning is more than simply an "itch," then we have to be at least open to consider the justice yearning in the same light...or reject that postulate for good reasons, and possibly, with it, have to reject our autonomy yearning as well...

[henry quirk]

it can have no fulfillment in a Deistic world...or after.

The afterlife is mystery. It is or it isn't. Color me dull, but I can't be bothered with it. The here and now, now, that's of interest to me. And, yeah, justice can be had here and now. I know this as fact. I won't explain how I know.

[Immanuel Can]

And, yeah, justice can be had here and now. I know this as fact. I won't explain how I know.

Aw. Now you've got me really interested.

[RCSaunders]

My contention is that the axioms needed come from ontology. Ontology precedes ethics. To clarify that claim, we might say that it's impossible to ask "What should we do?" without first answers questions like "With what?" " What's here?" "What's real, in this world in which we live?"

With the exception of seeing everything in terms of some, "we," I essentially agree with that view. Only individuals have the capacity to make choices. If an individual understands what is right, he can choose to do right, even if the entire world of humanity disagrees with him.

Yes, that's what I meant...not that there is any "we" in moral responsibility (or response-ability, in fact), but that "we" are all in the same pickle as individuals.

We agree.

Is everything here mere matter and energy, put into place by impersonal forces?

Wrong question. Slipping in, "put into place by some impersonal force," assumes without basis that existence is contingent.

Not "without basis." It's manifest that not everything here, if anything, is "necessary," so it is, by all accounts contingent.

It is absolutely NOT manifest. The word, "necessary," is slippery. If you mean everything here is "made necessary by something else," nothing here is necessary. If you mean, everything here is what it is and cannot be anything else, everything here is necessary. I'm sure you are equivocating.

Well, that glosses over a very remarkable fact, surely. And that is that the basic principles of this reality are comprehensible, in just the ways you describe. We live in a world constructed according to laws and regularities that are predictable, rational, and (marvel of marvels) comprehensible to the human mind. That is surely astonishing, and a thing we would never expect ...

There is another baseless assumption here. Existence is certainly understandable and the means of that understanding is reason, but to say, the "world constructed according to laws and regularities that are predictable," assumes something "constructed," existence and imposed the laws and regularities on it; but there is no basis for that assumption.

No, no...again, I'm not asking you to "assume" anything. I'm pointing out what is called "an argument to the best explanation." I'm saying we need to view the comprehensibility and rationality of the universe as data, and inductively decide from that data what the best explanation for that particular kind of data would be. That's all.

I'm not saying you are asking me to assume anything, I'm saying you are assuming that something other than the fact of existence and its nature is needed to explain that nature, and there is no basis for assuming any such explanation is required.

Whatever exists has to have some nature.

Now, THERE'S an assumption! Why should we think that anything had to exist at all?

What is cannot not be. No assumption is required. It's the law of non-contradiction.

Why not chaotic particles of matter floating in space, and entirely incomprehensible in their relations, and with no entity to posit "existence" of them at all. Or why not a universe in which even matter itself had no coherence, but fell into its ultimate sub-elements, whatever they are, and dissolved into nothingness?

First of all, whatever exists, organized, chaotic, coherent, incoherent, or whatever other kind nature it might have, whatever it is, if it's discoverable, when it is discovered, that is the nature it has. Secondly, the existence that actually is has all those characteristics you call order, coherent, and organized by "laws." That is the existence that actually is. A is A. It cannot be any other kind of existence which would make A non-A.

The fact that the universe has the highly ordered and structured, law-governed nature it has has to be, to any impartial observer, a fact of total wonderment. It did not have to be that way, and in fact, it did not have to "be" at all.

Of course it could not have been any other way and has to exist just as it is and have the exact nature it has. To assume existence could be different than it is assumes it is contingent, but there is no reason so suppose it is, unless one already assumes existence is the product of something else, but that is the very thing in question (at least for you, not for me).

The moral principles of which you speak also would make no sense in the world as an accidental generation of impersonal and indescribable forces.

I presume you mean by, "accidental," the, "unexpected," "unplanned," "unintended," "is, with no explanation," or "not teleological." Such would certainly be, "impersonal," but hardly, "indescribable," since that is exactly what science does.

But that begs the question above. Is the reason that science CAN describe the universe evidence that the universe has a structured, ordered, purposive nature? It would seem so.

Only to you and others who have already decided it is contingent. What you call structure and order are just how human intelligence has learned to describe the nature of existence as it is. There is no purpose in existence itself, except for the tiny bit that is rationally conscious, human beings.

The physical universe certainly exists unplanned and unintended and with nothing teleological about it

,
"Certainly"? I have to ask for the certification behind this "certainty" word of yours. What has made you so "certain," RC?

Reason! Do you doubt the universe exists? As for, "unplanned, unintended. and with nothing teleological about it," I'm certain in the same way I am certain there is no subconscious or phoenix living in Chicago.

You certainly do not believe God's existence is due to some preceding plan, intention, explanation or reason, do you? You certainly don't believe God's nature was imposed on God by something else, do you? You believe in the eternal uncaused just as I do, you just personify it and call it God.

I've had this argument with people extensively elsewhere, so I'll keep this response short, RC. There are only two options rationally possible here: either the universe is eternal, or the universe had a starting point. Fair enough? If something has a starting point, then it's not eternal. If it's eternal, it has no starting point. So that's analytic and necessary, obviously.

That would pertain to God, but not to the universe. God is a thing, an existent, but the universe is only a concept for everything that exists, but not a thing itself. Every thing has a beginning and an end whether it's an ant, a tree, a human being, a planet, a star, or galaxy, and if God actually exists he would have to have a beginning and an end.

So which is it? The universe is not eternal, we know, because science tells us empirically. No serious scientist doubts that anymore. All the remaining proposals for how a universe could come to exist without a singular starting point are presently flawed mathematical projections, not empirically verifiable theories.

Oh, well, if no serious scientist doubts it, it must be true. Who decides which scientists are the serious ones? As a matter of fact, even your "serious" scientists deny there was nothing before their guessed-at cosmic beginning, they only claim they do not know what it was. I have no reason to believe there was ever nothing, in whatever form it might have been, and, in fact, regard the hypothesis as logically impossible.

But purpose is not something imposed on existence, it is derived from existence, as you said, "ontology precedes ethics," because the source of all purpose and values is that which has purpose and values: living, conscious, volitional human beings.

This is a fallacy, RC. It's like reasoning, "Unicorns must exist, because human beings are the source of all unicorns." And while it is true that no creature IMAGINES unicorns but human beings, it does not follow that what humans imagine is real.

Purposes and values are not, "imagined," they are identified, rationally on the basis of human nature. If there were no human beings who must, discover what is and is not good for them as the kind of creatures they are (knowledge), and use that knowledge to think to weight different alternatives open to them (reason) to determine which best fulfill the requirements of their nature (values) there would be no purposes or values. The product of the process of reason is not fiction.

You've mistaken the claim: "Value is a human imagining," for a proof of "value is objectively real." The two do not connect, unless you're prepared to stipulate that "real" includes the imaginary.

Value is not, "imagined," it is the identification of what is preferable relative to some objective, purpose, or goal. Only human being have objectives, purposes, and goals. There are no values sans human beings.

...to be as fully human as possible, not merely to survive.

Which of us has certainty about this? What does it mean to "live fully," and what is genuinely "possible"? What makes us "human"? Is it you who know these secrets and will tell us, RC? Or are you deferring to another authority?

There is no authority, no secret short-cut, no revelation that will tell you what, "to live your life to the fullest," means. Every individual has there own mind and must use that mind to discover what living as fully human as possible means. It is not mandatory that anyone do so, however. Everyone is free to throw away the life they have (which most people do) because doing the hard work of discovering what their nature really requires and how to achieve it is hard and it is easier to accept the word of some authority or leader or expert than to think for oneself.

I know your premises are different from mine, and given them, it is not possible we can agree on what such life principles would be, but however much we disagree, I at least respect the fact you have principles and live by them because you believe there is something worth living for. In this age of nihilistic hedonism, that is important.

Hugely. Likewise.

And it's one of the things that makes you so interesting to talk to. You're not another post-Derridean blatherer, who claims he has no principles and that's his principle. You have views, and you defend them with integrity. I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you, even when we differ...and often, especially then.

I'm gratified that you find some value in our discussions as do I. You may be disappointed by the fact that the longer we discuss some of our differences, the more I am convinced of my view. I suspect you have a similar experience. Odd, in this world of eternal conflict.

[Immanuel Can]

Wrong question. Slipping in, "put into place by some impersonal force," assumes without basis that existence is contingent.

Not "without basis." It's manifest that not everything here, if anything, is "necessary," so it is, by all accounts contingent.

It is absolutely NOT manifest. [/quote}
Actually, it is. Since Hubble and Doppler, there's no longer a reasonable doubt. But we ought to have know it earlier, from things like entropy. Still, at least we know now.

The word, "necessary," is slippery. If you mean everything here is "made necessary by something else," nothing here is necessary. If you mean, everything here is what it is and cannot be anything else, everything here is necessary. I'm sure you are equivocating.

No. I'm speaking of the formal difference between "necessary" and "contingent." I'm not equivocating.

No, no...again, I'm not asking you to "assume" anything. I'm pointing out what is called "an argument to the best explanation." I'm saying we need to view the comprehensibility and rationality of the universe as data, and inductively decide from that data what the best explanation for that particular kind of data would be. That's all.

I'm not saying you are asking me to assume anything, I'm saying you are assuming that something other than the fact of existence and its nature is needed to explain that nature, and there is no basis for assuming any such explanation is required.

It is required. You can't argue from the observation that things exist to the argument that they exist "necessarily" -- at least, not in the formal, philosophical sense of that word. What "contingent" implies is that they could have not-existed, but it so happens that they did.

For example, that your initials are RC is contingent. You could have been given the initials TW. Or NBC. But it just so happens that you were given RC.

Here's a quick summary of philosophy's "necessary/contingent" distinction, just to clear this up. http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... aepist.htm

Whatever exists has to have some nature.

Now, THERE'S an assumption! Why should we think that anything had to exist at all?

What is cannot not be. No assumption is required. It's the law of non-contradiction.

What is, is contingent...meaning it could have not been, even if it now exists. There is no necessary reason why the universe had to exist at all.

It's not a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction only tells us that two equal and opposite proportions cannot be true at the same time, in the same way. So it tells us that if "RC is at home" is true, then "RC is not home" is not true. But it doesn't tell us that since RC is home, it could not have been the case that he was at the football grounds or the pub instead. He could have been. His being at home is true, but contingent, not necessary.

Why not chaotic particles of matter floating in space, and entirely incomprehensible in their relations, and with no entity to posit "existence" of them at all. Or why not a universe in which even matter itself had no coherence, but fell into its ultimate sub-elements, whatever they are, and dissolved into nothingness?

First of all, whatever exists, organized, chaotic, coherent, incoherent, or whatever other kind nature it might have, whatever it is, if it's discoverable, when it is discovered, that is the nature it has.

Of course. But that's not even relevant. What it's "nature" is tells us no more than what its "nature" is. It doesn't make it necessary.

Secondly, the existence that actually is has all those characteristics you call order, coherent, and organized by "laws." That is the existence that actually is. A is A. It cannot be any other kind of existence which would make A non-A.

You're arguing circularly, then. You're answering the question "Why does the universe have the nature it does?" by saying, "Because it's this universe, and has to have the nature it does." Which is the same as saying, "Why do you drive a green car?" Answer "Because it's my car, and my car is green."

It didn't have to be. "So it's perfectly reasonable for someone to ask, why did you choose a green car...you could have chosen red, or blue, or grey..."

The fact that the universe has the highly ordered and structured, law-governed nature it has has to be, to any impartial observer, a fact of total wonderment. It did not have to be that way, and in fact, it did not have to "be" at all.

Of course it could not have been any other way and has to exist just as it is and have the exact nature it has.

Are you a Determinist? If you're not, then the above statement is not just not obvious, it's obviously untrue. Things could have been different from what they are. You could have married a different woman. You could have been born in a different country. You could have preferred rap to classical music.

Or do you actually believe you have no authentic choices?

But that begs the question above. Is the reason that science CAN describe the universe evidence that the universe has a structured, ordered, purposive nature? It would seem so.

Only to you and others who have already decided it is contingent.

Analytically, it is.

I see what's happening here. You weren't familiar with the "contingent/necessary" distinction. Hopefully, that's now cleared up.

The physical universe certainly exists unplanned and unintended and with nothing teleological about it

,
"Certainly"? I have to ask for the certification behind this "certainty" word of yours. What has made you so "certain," RC?

Reason!

What "reasons" have led you to this "certainty"? If you have reasons, you can share them.

Do you doubt the universe exists?

Of course not. But that gives you absolutely no warrant for this "certainty" of yours. The universe in which I see intention and order is the same universe in which you claim "certainty" about it's "unplanned, unintended and unteleological" nature. I just want to see what evidence you're going on.

You certainly do not believe God's existence is due to some preceding plan, intention, explanation or reason, do you? You certainly don't believe God's nature was imposed on God by something else, do you? You believe in the eternal uncaused just as I do, you just personify it and call it God.

I've had this argument with people extensively elsewhere, so I'll keep this response short, RC. There are only two options rationally possible here: either the universe is eternal, or the universe had a starting point. Fair enough? If something has a starting point, then it's not eternal. If it's eternal, it has no starting point. So that's analytic and necessary, obviously.

That would pertain to God, but not to the universe.

Incorrect. It would necessarily pertain to anything. There is only the possibility of a starting point or eternality. There's no third option there.

if God actually exists he would have to have a beginning and an end.

Incorrect again. Things that have a starting point have to be non-eternal. If there is an eternal entity, then, by definition it has no starting point. Traditionally eternality is attributed to God. You may doubt that. Okay. But no scientist today attributed eternality to the universe. There's too much contrary data.

So which is it? The universe is not eternal, we know, because science tells us empirically. No serious scientist doubts that anymore. All the remaining proposals for how a universe could come to exist without a singular starting point are presently flawed mathematical projections, not empirically verifiable theories.

Oh, well, if no serious scientist doubts it, it must be true.

Are you arguing that the science is bad? Fraudulent, maybe? Hubble was a fool? Doppler, a charlatan? Do you have evidence to suggest such a conclusion.

How about Alexander Vilenkin, the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, who has been studying the subject for over two decades now: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

Purposes and values are not, "imagined," they are identified, rationally on the basis of human nature.

Human nature is an "is." It does not imply any "ought." You can't logically derive an ought from an is. That means that whatever these contingent human creatures come to "value" is also contingent. They could have chosen to "value" other things. And indeed, you see that human beings do not share most values in common. Indeed, taking the entire human race into account, you'd have to admit they don't share any values at all; for there is no value so universal that nobody nowhere has ever chosen to devalue it.

You've mistaken the claim: "Value is a human imagining," for a proof of "value is objectively real." The two do not connect, unless you're prepared to stipulate that "real" includes the imaginary.

Value is not, "imagined," it is the identification of what is preferable relative to some objective, purpose, or goal. Only human being have objectives, purposes, and goals. There are no values sans human beings.

There are no unicorns sans human beings either. That does not suggest there are real unicorns.

There is no authority, no secret short-cut, no revelation that will tell you what, "to live your life to the fullest," means. Every individual has there own mind and must use that mind to discover what living as fully human as possible means. It is not mandatory that anyone do so, however. Everyone is free to throw away the life they have (which most people do) because doing the hard work of discovering what their nature really requires and how to achieve it is hard and it is easier to accept the word of some authority or leader or expert than to think for oneself.

You contradict yourself here.

If there is no revelation that will tell you how to live your life to the fullest, then how can you possibly claim someone can "throw away" that life? Who gave you the authority or capacity to judge such a thing, since your standards only apply to yourself, you say. According to your account, it cannot possibly be "hard," since nobody can possibly fail to "life their life to the fullest." There's no "non-fullest," according to your account. And then there is no way anybody can do anything but "think for himself."

To say otherwise you would need grounds to impose your own standard on others. And this, you claim you do not do.

I'm gratified that you find some value in our discussions as do I. You may be disappointed by the fact that the longer we discuss some of our differences, the more I am convinced of my view. I suspect you have a similar experience. Odd, in this world of eternal conflict.

Well, there are two things that can happen from a quality conversation in which two debate some point: one, some part of somebody's mind can be changed to be a bit more commensurate with the other's. This is the thing you feel I would lament not happening. And perhaps I would.

But the other thing is that both participants can become more aware, more subtle and more refined in their own thinking...achieving a greater depth of insight as to why they hold the positions they do, even if they are ultimately positions similar to those they held at the start. This is no small gain.

The issue of truth ultimately settles itself. In the meanwhile, there is value for us in refining our thinking...whichever way our personal judgment tends in the final analysis. So that is some consolation, to be sure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But your argument is that the 'highest good' for a species is to maintain (etc) itself. (And earlier you've claimed that we should adopt a moral code, with ideal goals, and so on. Similar approach.)

Seriously, can you explain the functional difference between the 'is' assertion and the 'should' or 'ought to' assertion? If so, please do so - and never mind if you don't want to assert the 'should' or 'ought to' claim.

Note I stated, we should or recommended, i.e. imperative for efficiency, that we adopt the "moral ought" as a GUIDE only within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
You may have been confused by the seemingly contradiction 'moral ought' as a GUIDE only.
Note I have highlighted "1000s" times, such a ideal 'ought' is never to be enforced.

Thanks. I completely understand that you don't propose enforcement of any kind. I completely understand that that the moral 'ought' you propose is a guide only. You've said this a thousand times, and I completely understand it. No need to say it again.

From the way you asked question it appear to me you did not understand it.
Now that you said so, I'll take it.

Now, given that we agree that 'should' and 'ought to' have nothing compulsory or mandatory in their meaning - that they are advisory only - that they express a recommendation only - please can you explain the function of the 'should' assertion below.

We should adopt a moral code with ideal goals.

In other words, if you were to make that assertion - or something like it - what would be your reason for making it, and how do you think the rest of us should understand it?

Note the common saying;
"Shoot for the stars.."

The objective of Morality and Ethics is the striving for optimal good behavior and prevent evil ones.
To ensure continuous improvements of optimality we need to set ideal [impossible in practice] goals.
This is like the carrot-stick type of motivation where people will be motivated to strive towards the goals at all times, thus generating optimal continuous improvements towards the impossible goal. [note optimal].



In the case of Morality, the motivation to strive towards the ideal is naturally developed not by deception as in the case of the donkey and carrot-stick example.

If non-ideal goals are set people will be lackadaisical when they have reached the sub-standard goal thinking there is nothing else to be achieved.

• Example, if there is an acceptable moral standard that permit 100,000 people be killed by premeditate a year, people will accept that as the norm and not strive to improve by reducing the numbers killed.
  But if there is an ideal Goal of say ZERO Deaths by murder, then people will strive to reduce the existing number to their optimal possibilities towards the ideal.
  Note I have argued, DNA/RNA wise all humans has an intrinsic potential for morality and continuous progressive positive improvements.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There initially needs to be some provisional axioms to establish the basis for morality...

Quite so.

"There initially needs to be some provisional axioms to establish the basis for morality," for what? What is the objective of, "morality?" Why would anyone need to know anything called, "moral," or, "ethical," principles?

It is not too difficult to understand why the basic principles of mechanics, mathematics, the general sciences, language (reading and writing), even finance (what money is and how to use it) or even food preparation are important to one's life and why one would want to know and use those principles. Why would anyone want to know and use moral principles?

With very rare exception, I have never seen this question answered that does not assume someone's preconceived notion of what moral principles are. All the answers are variations of, "you should be moral because it is moral." It's a non-answer.

When you don't have any moral sense, you implying you don't mind someone [with immoral proclivities] cutting you up, then cook and eating your flesh.
It is likely you are a psychopath, thus do not have an active moral compass within your brain/mind.

It is not a question of "you should be moral" because no one can force another to do anything voluntarily.

The issue with Morality and Ethics is each person need to be catalyzed and be triggered to be moral and ethical spontaneously in alignment with the moral drive that intrinsic within his brain/mind.
This is like the trigger of puberty within a child, it comes naturally without force.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ALL humans [with exceptions and perversion] are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable, avoid premature death, fuck to produce the next generations, with ocytoxins to take care of the newborn and child so that they can produce the next generations, i.e. all these are to serve the "highest good" i.e. preservation of the human species based on the principles of large numbers.
You dispute this?

This is mostly correct. I would only change it as follows:

The great mass of sub-humans, who have not quite fully evolved to true rational volitional beings are "programmed" to survive and reproduce like the mindless protozoa they are most like, chimeras, part animal and part human, whose extinction cannot occur too soon, leaving the world free for the use and enjoyment of the truly productive human beings.

I agree to an extent but all humans must strive to develop their full potential of rationality [faculty of reason] and wisdom [experience] for the purpose to expedite their intrinsic moral and ethical nature, thus striving to align toward the highest good.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Slavery is wrong independent of your opinion or axioms. Slavery is wrong independent even of ontology.

This isn't so. Even the predication "is wrong" makes no sense in a world in which nothing is objectively "wrong."

If your choose an axioms; or your choice of ontology leads you to conclude that morality is right then it simply means that you are immoral.

"Are immoral" has the same problem. In a world that is merely the accidental product of cosmic forces, nothing "is immoral." The term has no objective referent. Things simply are whatever they are. No value judgments can be attached in an non-gratuitous way.

Not only that, but you are (now gratuitously) calling societies like primitive tribes and some Islamic societies, which still practice slavery, "immoral." So that's not terribly "multicultural" and "tolerant of you." But of course, that isn't "wrong" either. Unfortunately for your argument, it's also not "right." Neither word has an objective connotation.

Since a non-theist do not share the same grounds as your God,
there is no way for you to argue with nor convince a non-theist of your "Christianity objective moral maxim - love your enemies" who is about to kill you or skin you alive?
There is no basis for you to prevent non-theists to do the same at any time now or the future.
This is why the theistic moral moral is pseudo-morality and bastardized morality.

The only reliance is for you to depend on secular laws which is often too late.

The only effective solution to prevent the above from happening in the future is to establish efficient Framework and System of Morality which is guided by secular objective absolute moral oughts that will trigger all humans to be spontaneously moral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
It had to have a cause.

The only point of debate left is "What cause?"
And since none of us can go back to the Singularity at the start of the universe and make empirical tests, we are obliged to use "argument to the best explanation" to decide the case.

You are only playing with words, i.e. 'beginning' and 'cause' that do not have any independent ontological referents.

According to Hume, there is no such thing as causation.
What is termed causation is represented by psychological activities in the brain/mind.

Note Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures re Karl Popper.
Science do not make absolute conclusion like "the Universe has a beginning" which is actually a polished conjectures.
Science do not discount the possibilities there are events before the Big Bang.

Your reliance on the above to project your intended conclusion,
-therefore God exists, is a sham.

Your are an epistemological and philosophical coward.
Why don't you just present your DIRECT evidence for the existence of God which is verifiable by Science to confirm whether God exists as real or not?
For example, to prove the Moon exists empirically, there is direct empirical evidences to verify the moon exists as real scientifically and philosophically.
Why beat around the bush with something as critical a claim for God's existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Purposes and values are not, "imagined," they are identified, rationally on the basis of human nature.

Human nature is an "is." It does not imply any "ought." You can't logically derive an ought from an is. That means that whatever these contingent human creatures come to "value" is also contingent. They could have chosen to "value" other things. And indeed, you see that human beings do not share most values in common. Indeed, taking the entire human race into account, you'd have to admit they don't share any values at all; for there is no value so universal that nobody nowhere has ever chosen to devalue it.

What is, [except for the inevitability of mortality] is all humans are observed to breathe and where they don't or cannot breathe, they die prematuredly.
Therefore all humans ought to breathe until the inevitable.
The above "is" imply an "ought".

Hume did not go into the above obvious facts because his concern was only to condemn the bastardized morality of theists who insist on moral 'ought' from an illusory God.

[Skepdick]

You used language to say so.

I tried telepathy first - you didn't respond.

I'm afraid that's a false dichotomy there, S.

It wasn't even a dichotomy. How stupid are you?

You might. But that's irrelevant. What you WOULD do is merely a matter of personal choice; what you SHOULD do, if such a thing exists, suggests you would be immoral NOT to do as you suggest.

Everything is a matter of personal choice. Even ontology. You have no foundations to make any arguments upon, so even your arguments are a matter of personal choice.

You have free will.

If your free choices lead you to enslave and murder people - you are immoral. It's not rocket surgery.

That's quite different. If there's a SHOULD, then it would tell you to do it even if you didn't want to, and it would tell you you were perfectly right not to allow anybody else in your society to do those bad things either.

But WOULD does not do that.

And yet. Between the choice to speak, and the choice to remain silent...Here you are.

Sounds like you believe you OUGHT/SHOULD/WOULD speak.

Or are you now saying, "We have power, therefore we are right"?

No. I am saying I have power AND I am right. Therefore - your axioms are wrong.

It's exactly the same thing God says.

That's question-begging. It allows the person who claims to be "tolerant" to define and dismiss anyone who disagrees with him/her...not "tolerant" at all.

You mean, it allows them to Philosophise/rationalise their wrongness? Yeah! That's why Philosophy is bullshit.

If you were genuinely tolerant, then you would, as the world literally implies, "put up with" whatever a disagreeable person said to you. You would advocate free speech.

Dumb-weasel Philosopher, trying to point out the tension between human rights. Human rights contradict each other.

WE KNOW.

If you want to play the one-upmanship game on "genuine tolerance" - lets go.

If you were "genuinely tolerant" you would tolerate murderers, slavers and child rapists, and people robbing you.
If you were "genuinely tolerant" you would tolerate any physical, verbal or emotional abuse against your self.

Humanity in 2020 is way more tolerant than your God, but tolerance is finite.

What establishes it, then? It's not establishable historically, or on preference, or on culture, or on power, or on an objective moral scheme. So what makes them wrong?

Objectivity makes it wrong. Scientific consensus. Billions of empiricists agree.

Social norms.

You've got no groundwork there.

Why do I need groundwork to be moral?

[Skepdick]

I have no argument with the view that slavery is always wrong, but I do have a question about how you come to that conclusion.

I used statistical methods - I considered both hypotheses:

A. Slavery is wrong.
B. Slavery is right.

And then I eliminated one.

Do you have a rational basis for saying, "slavery is always wrong?" or is it just an assumption?

My basis is empiricism.

It sounds like, "it is immoral to have slaves because having slaves is immoral." There must be something more to your reasoning than that, I'm sure.

The grammar is correct (slavery is wrong) - the semantics of WHY slavery is wrong don't matter.

No amount of justification can justify any argument given the Munchhausen trillema.

If anybody thinks that my claim "murder is wrong" is itself wrong, is welcome to correct my thinking through falsification - convince me that murder is right.

[Belinda]

And, yeah, justice can be had here and now. I know this as fact. I won't explain how I know.

Aw. Now you've got me really interested.

Maybe, but I bet Henry does not apply justice to cats and dogs.

Henry perhaps refers to retributive justice. Perhaps Henry refers to distributive justice. For both retributive justice and distributive justice the rules are cultural, as we see from the fact people like us once hanged cats and dogs as retribution for misbehaviour.