What could make morality objective?

[Nick_A]

Peter

I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point.

Again, suppose humans do actually have a universal purpose. That still wouldn't make it a fact that humans should or ought to serve that universal purpose. To say that humans should do so would be to express an opinion, and matters of opinion are subjective.

I am distinguishing between human and animal purpose. Either way organic life serves a universal purpose. Animal Life on earth is serving a mechanical purpose supporting universal needs. However, man is unique on earth because he doesn't just serve a mechanical purpose but also the potential to serve a conscious purpose.

All of the universal traditions initiating with a conscious source began with the purpose of awakening humanity to its conscious potential. Obviously as humanity lives, we react as conditioned to do. Morality for conscious man is our potential but doesn't exist for us as we are lacking human consciousness.

Probably a most ego deflating concept is the realization that as creatures of reaction, we have yet to feel objective morality. It is a quality of consciousness experienced as objective conscience. When we do experience the difference between objective and subjective morality, It is a humbling experience

[Immanuel Can]

You simply refuse to recognise that saying something is so doesn't make it so, never mind who or what is doing the saying.

I never suggested any such thing, actually. I have to say that that's a "read in" on your part, rather like you read into Roger Scruton things he didn't say, too. That's a habit you might want to abandon. Just saying.

I would agree with you, actually, but also say the opposite is equally true: that disbelieving in something doesn't make it go away, if it exists.

Moreover, I would suggest that the obvious conclusion from the claim, "Peter hasn't experienced X" is not anything close to, "X doesn't exist," --- but merely that "IF X does exist, Peter has not yet experienced X...but one day may, if indeed, X does exist, and won't experience X if X does not." Not a very grand claim, to be sure; but it's much more epistemologically modest and is at least compatible with the premise "Peter hasn't experienced X."

But you made the claim that "there's no proof." So I ask you again, what did you have in mind? What proof would you accept...assuming such could ever be provided?

If your answer is, "No proof will ever satisfy me," then your complaint evaporates. Nothing would ever be good enough to convince you. But it's not possible to say any longer that Peter's disbelief is a product of any lack in evidence. There's nothing that can please him.

But, in point of fact, disbelieving in any possibility of proof is just as irrational as gratuitously refusing to believe in anything...it's a voluntary state of unbelief, not a necessary, rational or evidentiary one.

[RCSaunders]

Do you think a police force is necessary?

Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist?

Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.

[Impenitent]

Do you think a police force is necessary?

Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist?

Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.

Sting would disagree

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think a police force is necessary?

Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist?

Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.

That's cute, but hardly true.

If we were in a Communist country, where the Stazi or the Cheka were kicking down the door and dragging us off to the gulags, you might have a case. But the good ol' Bobbies are hardly the secret police type. They don't even have guns.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure. Don't you believe criminals exist?

Sure, but the police are the most dangerous criminals.

Sting would disagree

-Imp

Hey, you'd never get away from them, because they "Can't Stand Losing You."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Above. You said that one God says "Do not kill," and the other says "Kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat..." If you believe that, you do not believe they are talking about the same "god." They are talking about two different ones.

That is the point, theism is full of contradictions, thus false.

You mean that if one person says that VA is a tall male, and one says that VA is a short female, then logically, you think that means there can be no VA?

I'm sorry you don't exist, then. My apologies for banishing you from existence by my error.

The above reflect your lack of intelligence.

Note the definition of God as accepted by theists;

In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
-wiki

Thus different theists can make additional claims to their God as defined above, the differences are merely their own and not imply God do not exists because of the different claims.

You cannot prove your God is true while the Muslim God is false.

Sure you can. To prove which one is the real VA, all somebody would have to do is to know the real VA.

Yes, the real can be verified empirically and scientifically by anyone to be a real person.
But there is no real God to be verified empirically, scientifically and philosophically.

Theistic morality is grounded on a generally accepted God [as defined above] which cannot be verified as real.

It's just as if I said, "VA is a tall male," and "VA is a short female." The logical and inevitable conclusion to such a contradiction is that we are talking about two different people called "VA."

As far a VA is concerned this can be easily verifying the person empirically.

Now you've got it!

It's exactly the same procedure in reference to God. Views which conform to how God actually is, are true. Those that do not conform to the true nature of who God is are false. It's that simple.

Not relevant, there is no comparison between verifying a real empirical person and an illusory God.

Allah the God of Islam conform to the a generally accepted God [as defined].

...there is only one same absolute God for the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus [Brahman] and other monotheistic beliefs.

So many things wrong with this idea...where does one start?

How about first with the fact that Hinduism isn't a "monotheism"? It's a Pantheism, or even a polytheism. Why do you think they call India, "the land of a million gods?"

Whilst Hinduism is polytheistic at one level, these many gods are overruled by the ultimate monotheistic God, i.e. Brahman.

Secondly, if someone gets the description of God wrong, then it's quite obviously not the real God they're worshipping. Instead, at best, it's a wrong guess, and at worst, it's a fiction they or others, have created. And not only do I think so, but so does every other religion.

Same with VA. If I've never met VA (as indeed I have not) and I insist that you are a ten-foot-tall bird, then the logical conclusion is not that there is no such thing as a VA, but that I don't actually know anything about VA at all.

Easy again.

There is no real-God in the first place.

As I had stated, theistic morality is grounded on a a generally accepted God [as defined] which is not real but illusory.

On top of being grounded on an illusory, theistic morality are very subjective to the specific group of theistic religion[group]. Theistic morality is also laden with evil elements* and enforced with the threat of Hell, thus very conditional.

Whilst Islam has loads of evil element, Christianity also has evil elements among others, e.g. 'slavery' [fundamentally is evil] is not condemned absolutely.

As such, theistic morality is pseudo-morality in contrast to secular morality which strives toward the ideal [highest good] without conditions, thus absolute.

[Peter Holmes]

You simply refuse to recognise that saying something is so doesn't make it so, never mind who or what is doing the saying.

I never suggested any such thing, actually. I have to say that that's a "read in" on your part, rather like you read into Roger Scruton things he didn't say, too. That's a habit you might want to abandon. Just saying.

I would agree with you, actually, but also say the opposite is equally true: that disbelieving in something doesn't make it go away, if it exists.

Okay. You agree that saying something is so (or not so) doesn't make it so (or not so). For example, saying the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't make it an oblate spheroid - and who does the saying is irrelevant. Pari passu, saying something is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong - and who does the saying is irrelevant. To except your imagined god from this fact is to commit the fallacy of special pleading.

Moreover, I would suggest that the obvious conclusion from the claim, "Peter hasn't experienced X" is not anything close to, "X doesn't exist," --- but merely that "IF X does exist, Peter has not yet experienced X...but one day may, if indeed, X does exist, and won't experience X if X does not." Not a very grand claim, to be sure; but it's much more epistemologically modest and is at least compatible with the premise "Peter hasn't experienced X."

But you made the claim that "there's no proof." So I ask you again, what did you have in mind? What proof would you accept...assuming such could ever be provided?

I don't believe I said there's no proof for the existence of a god, but if I did, I withdraw that. To clarify: the burden of proof for the god-existence-claim is with theists, and - to my knowledge - has never been met. That's not to say there's no god and no proof for its existence. And it isn't my job to tell you what proof would convince me. Produce the so-called proof that convinces you, and I'll assess it.

And, btw, this has nothing to do with the function of moral assertions, which is unaffected by the existence or non-existence of any agent.

If your answer is, "No proof will ever satisfy me," then your complaint evaporates. Nothing would ever be good enough to convince you. But it's not possible to say any longer that Peter's disbelief is a product of any lack in evidence. There's nothing that can please him.

But, in point of fact, disbelieving in any possibility of proof is just as irrational as gratuitously refusing to believe in anything...it's a voluntary state of unbelief, not a necessary, rational or evidentiary one.

Ah - your giant straw man, designed to block out the actual situation - which is that you can't demonstrate the existence of your god, one of the thousands invented by our ancestors. Like all forms of supernaturalism, your credulity is irrational - and that conclusion must be resisted at all costs. Too much is at stake.

[Belinda]

That is the point, theism is full of contradictions, thus false.

You mean that if one person says that VA is a tall male, and one says that VA is a short female, then logically, you think that means there can be no VA?

I'm sorry you don't exist, then. My apologies for banishing you from existence by my error.

The above reflect your lack of intelligence.

Note the definition of God as accepted by theists;

In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
-wiki

Thus different theists can make additional claims to their God as defined above, the differences are merely their own and not imply God do not exists because of the different claims.

You cannot prove your God is true while the Muslim God is false.

Sure you can. To prove which one is the real VA, all somebody would have to do is to know the real VA.

Yes, the real can be verified empirically and scientifically by anyone to be a real person.
But there is no real God to be verified empirically, scientifically and philosophically.



Theistic morality is grounded on a generally accepted God [as defined above] which cannot be verified as real.

As far a VA is concerned this can be easily verifying the person empirically.

Now you've got it!

It's exactly the same procedure in reference to God. Views which conform to how God actually is, are true. Those that do not conform to the true nature of who God is are false. It's that simple.

Not relevant, there is no comparison between verifying a real empirical person and an illusory God.

Allah the God of Islam conform to the a generally accepted God [as defined].

...there is only one same absolute God for the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus [Brahman] and other monotheistic beliefs.

So many things wrong with this idea...where does one start?

How about first with the fact that Hinduism isn't a "monotheism"? It's a Pantheism, or even a polytheism. Why do you think they call India, "the land of a million gods?"

Whilst Hinduism is polytheistic at one level, these many gods are overruled by the ultimate monotheistic God, i.e. Brahman.

Secondly, if someone gets the description of God wrong, then it's quite obviously not the real God they're worshipping. Instead, at best, it's a wrong guess, and at worst, it's a fiction they or others, have created. And not only do I think so, but so does every other religion.

Same with VA. If I've never met VA (as indeed I have not) and I insist that you are a ten-foot-tall bird, then the logical conclusion is not that there is no such thing as a VA, but that I don't actually know anything about VA at all.

Easy again.

There is no real-God in the first place.

As I had stated, theistic morality is grounded on a a generally accepted God [as defined] which is not real but illusory.

On top of being grounded on an illusory, theistic morality are very subjective to the specific group of theistic religion[group]. Theistic morality is also laden with evil elements* and enforced with the threat of Hell, thus very conditional.

Whilst Islam has loads of evil element, Christianity also has evil elements among others, e.g. 'slavery' [fundamentally is evil] is not condemned absolutely.

As such, theistic morality is pseudo-morality in contrast to secular morality which strives toward the ideal [highest good] without conditions, thus absolute.

I agree with Immanuel, and the wiki definition. Sectarian claims are idolatrous, divisive, and imbued with local customs or even superstition.

Secular morality did not arise de novo but emerged from religions after renaissance of Greek learning.Greek learning never died but survived in other religions , seers, and prophets,until the age of scientific enlightenment when it became mainstream.

[Skepdick]

You simply refuse to recognise that saying something is so doesn't make it so, never mind who or what is doing the saying.

I never suggested any such thing, actually. I have to say that that's a "read in" on your part, rather like you read into Roger Scruton things he didn't say, too. That's a habit you might want to abandon. Just saying.

I would agree with you, actually, but also say the opposite is equally true: that disbelieving in something doesn't make it go away, if it exists.

Okay. You agree that saying something is so (or not so) doesn't make it so (or not so). For example, saying the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't make it an oblate spheroid - and who does the saying is irrelevant. Pari passu, saying something is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong - and who does the saying is irrelevant. To except your imagined god from this fact is to commit the fallacy of special pleading.

Watching Peter attempting to rescue his argument by applying the exact same straw-man he got caught out on is just pure gold.
And yet he still insist on omitting the part that he doesn't like. So lets explain it to him like a 5 year old retard.

Saying that Earth doesn't exist doesn't make the Earth disappear - who does the saying is irrelevant.
Saying that objective morality doesn't exist doesn't make objective morality disappear - who does the saying is irrelevant.

It's not about who does the saying. It's about who does the determination.

[Peter Holmes]

Saying that unicorns exist doesn't make unicorns exist. Saying that unicorns don't exist doesn't make unicorns not exist. Something else, other than 'saying', is needed to establish the existence or non-existence of unicorns.

Saying something is so or not so doesn't make it so or not so. And who does the saying is irrelevant.

So saying something is morally right or wrong doesn't make it morally right or wrong. And who does the saying is irrelevant.

This shows that the argument from the existence of a god to the objectivity of moral assertions is unsound.

[Skepdick]

Saying that unicorns exist doesn't make unicorns exist. Saying that unicorns don't exist doesn't make unicorns not exist. Something else, other than 'saying', is needed to establish the existence or non-existence of unicorns.

Saying something is so or not so doesn't make it so or not so. And who does the saying is irrelevant.

So saying something is morally right or wrong doesn't make it morally right or wrong. And who does the saying is irrelevant.

This shows that the argument from the existence of a god to the objectivity of moral assertions is unsound.

Rinse. Repeat.

Who or what is needed to establish the existence or non-existence of Earth?
Who or what is needed to establish the existence or non-existence of anything?

Until you answer the above questions, your assertion of unsoundness is just as unfounded.

Who or what is needed to establish soundness or unsoundness of any argument?

[Peter Holmes]

A factual assertion, such as 'unicorns exist' claims something about reality that may or may not be the case, so that (classically) the assertion is true or false. The existence or non-existence of unicorns is independent from who or what claims that they do or don't exist. The fact that someone, some agent, is needed in order to produce the claim that unicorns do or don't exist has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion 'unicorns exist', because unicorns either do or don't exist. The existence-status of unicorns has nothing whatsoever to do with language, or the existence of agents who make existence-claims.

Now, the absence of evidence for a factual assertion such as 'unicorns exist' may not mean that the assertion is false. But it does mean that to believe the assertion is true is irrational. And the burden of proof for the assertion 'unicorns exist' is with the claimant. The rest of us don't have to (and can't rationally) claim that unicorns don't exist. We just don't accept the claim that they do exist, pending evidence.

Moral realists claim that moral features of reality (state-of-affairs) exist, such as the moral wrongness of slavery. And moral objectivists agree, claiming that moral assertions, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', are factual, because the moral wrongness of slavery either does or doesn't exist, in the way that unicorns either do or don't exist. So theirs is the burden of proving that the moral wrongness of slavery exists, independent from any agent claiming that it does or doesn't exist. And the absence of evidence, etc...

Back to 'just saying'. Just saying that unicorns and the moral wrongness of slavery exist doesn't mean they do exist - just as saying they don't exist doesn't mean they don't exist. What agents say has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of things. Those things either do or don't exist whether or not there are agents, and whether or not those agents say they do or don't exist.

So far, all that moral realists and objectivists have produced is unjustified arguments - theistic and secular. But they bang on and on - as this OP discussion has shown - because (it appears) they have no evidence to support their claims. And perhaps this folly will stretch on to the crack of doom. After all, never let the absence of evidence get in the way of a deeply-held belief.

[Skepdick]

Empty words, Peter. Empty words.

A factual assertion, such as ' ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality exist[s]' claims something about reality that may or may not be the case, so that (classically) the assertion is true or false. The existence or non-existence of ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality is independent from who or what claims that they do or don't exist. The fact that someone, some agent, is needed in order to produce the claim that ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality do[es] or do[es]n't exist has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion ' ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality exist[s]', because ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality either do[es] or do[es]n't exist. The existence-status of ̶u̶n̶i̶c̶o̶r̶n̶s̶ objective morality has nothing whatsoever to do with language, or the existence of agents who make existence-claims.

Rinse. Repeat.

Who or what is needed to assert factuality?

Now, the absence of evidence for a factual assertion such as 'unicorns exist' may not mean that the assertion is false. But it does mean that to believe the assertion is true is irrational.

The your belief in the existence of the Earth is 100% irrational. I bet you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.

[Immanuel Can]

The above reflect your lack of intelligence.

Well, it's not so great that I can't get my grammar correct.

I can see you're not actually open to discussion, just to superficial "winning" by insisting gratuitously. So I'll leave it there.