What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

1 Neither theism (a belief) nor non-theism - atheism - (the rejection of that belief) can actually do anything, such as 'resolve the slavery issue'. So your question is incoherent.

That would be true only if Theism is conclusively proved to be untrue. Since that's not the case, we mustn't beg the question. If Theism turns out to be true, then it can provide a theoretical and grounded account of right and wrong, in the case of slavery. Nothing can guarantee that human beings will do what's moral, even once they've found out what it is.

3 You say: 'Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.' And this is simply false.

Then that should be dead easy for you to show. Explain, please, the rationale that runs from the presupposition of Non-Theism to "Therefore, slavery should be resisted."

I'm very eager to see that.

P.S. -- Until we get some grounded, rational account of what morality is, any critique based on a claim that "X is not moral" is not answerable. Before you can produce a moral critique of anything, you have to have a standard by which to judge. This is the importance of settling the issue at #3 above. Then we can deal with the rest.

[Immanuel Can]

My argument is that instead of faking laws, and allowing people to say they are obeying them when they are clearly not, we should enforce those laws. Free the slaves. But to do that, and to know we're right in doing that, we need an account of morality that explains why slavery is absolutely wrong, and justifies our stand against it.

It is the laws that provide the grounding for improvement and that humanity can now shift attention to the more finer shades of the modern form of slavery.

Laws don't "ground" anything. Laws themselves have to be grounded IN a universal value.

You can see this very easily, because we can ask the question, "Which laws should we have?" That's a very natural and common question. So to refer only to the authority of laws is to beg the whole question of whether or not the laws in view are themselves moral. If one country has laws that allow for slavery, and another has those that make it illegal, then we would need to refer to a prior standard by which to know which laws were moral.

You and I might take it for granted that slavery is wrong. But it's not obviously wrong in the view of a great many other people, and historically, ours is a minority opinion.

So how do we know we're right? We would need to refer to an ultimate, objective moral standard to show that we were, a standard not susceptible to such variables as local opinion, the numbers game, cultural predispositions and temporality. Then we could safely say, "We know for certain that slavery is wrong, even if people X say it's okay." There's no other way.

Human Rights and other NGOs are consistently highlighting the problem of modern slavery.

Indeed they are. And most of these are disproportionally staffed by Theists. So that makes sense.

Here are the UN statistics on that:

Table 2: Religious affiliation

Religious affiliation / Number of organizations / Percentage of all religious NGOs

Christian 187 @ 58.4 %

Muslim 52 @ 16.3 %

Jewish 22 @ 6.9 %

Buddhist 14 @ 4.4 %

Hindu 3 @ 0.9 %

Spiritual 25 @ 7.8 %

Multireligious 11 @ 3.4 %

Other religions[23] 6 @ 1.9 %

Total 320 100

[uwot]

1 Neither theism (a belief) nor non-theism - atheism - (the rejection of that belief) can actually do anything, such as 'resolve the slavery issue'. So your question is incoherent.

That would be true only if Theism is conclusively proved to be untrue.

Doh! Mr Can, in a couple of weeks time, you will have been a member of this forum for 5 years, and in all that time, despite it being pointed out to you repeatedly, you are still too dim or dishonest to understand that it is for you to prove that your god exists; there is no burden of proof on anyone who does not believe you. Your reasoning is that of a 6 year old: 'You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.'

P.S. -- Until we get some grounded, rational account of what morality is, any critique based on a claim that "X is not moral" is not answerable. Before you can produce a moral critique of anything, you have to have a standard by which to judge. This is the importance of settling the issue at #3 above. Then we can deal with the rest.

No, Mr Can; the question is 'What could make morality objective?' You claim to have an answer based on the will of a god who believes we are all guilty for something that didn't actually happen; whose only way to forgive us was to sacrifice his own son and who will torture us forever if we don't believe it. Nobody in their right mind would think that is a "grounded, rational account" and yet that is your "standard by which to judge."

[Dubious]

Laws don't "ground" anything. Laws themselves have to be grounded IN a universal value.

If we waited for laws to be grounded in universal values we wouldn't have any. If laws are grounded at all its within the culture that grew them which includes every holy writ on the planet. It's only the defunct theistic mentality which claims universal values. Even if there were such a thing the very definition of "universal" would need to disclaim and exclude it as "theistic", i.e., your version of it.

Still up to your old BS. Do you guys EVER learn anything!

[Immanuel Can]

If we waited for laws to be grounded in universal values we wouldn't have any.

If we go ahead and make them without rational grounding, then they're arbitrary laws and there's no reason a rational person ought to regard them as obligatory.

Even if there were such a thing the very definition of "universal" would need to disclaim and exclude it as "theistic", i.e., your version of it.

Not at all. You're supposing that there are not merely different "versions" but that they all deserve equal respect. They don't. Some are clearly better than others. After all, don't you think your morality is better than that of an ISIL terrorist? I would say it probably is.

So, assuming anyone has the right basis of morality, he or she does not need to make apologies for excluding the ones that are not right. They are wrong.

If "morality" is a real thing (and as you can see, the OP takes it for granted that it is, for otherwise Peter could not even coherently pose the question) then something is absolutely true about its nature. And it doesn't matter how many different views there are, because some will be closer and some farther away from the truth. But the truth will be the truth, regardless of what we might like to think.

Or would you say that I'm "absolutely" wrong for saying so? Awfully intolerant of you.

[Dubious]

If we waited for laws to be grounded in universal values we wouldn't have any.

If we go ahead and make them without rational grounding, then they're arbitrary laws and there's no reason a rational person ought to regard them as obligatory.

In theism its precisely because it's not rational that people believe it...or as Tertullian truly spoke "Certum est quia impossibile est" which endorses its own type of rationality to ratify that which is impossible to believe. The man was no hypocrite!

The rational has changing perspectives while the irrational remains ensconced as if all thinking ceased in a single moment of supposed revelation.

You're supposing that there are not merely different "versions" but that they all deserve equal respect. They don't. Some are clearly better than others. After all, don't you think your morality is better than that of an ISIL terrorist? I would say it probably is.

No idea how this refers to what I wrote; it seems you're desperate to make up stories again.

So, assuming anyone has the right basis of morality, he or she does not need to make apologies for excluding the ones that are not right. They are wrong.

Truth having always been relative to the society which claims it, it follows any morality which proceeds on that basis must be equally so. Morality is best anchored when coming from a higher source to make its rules more absolute and unconditional; a convention overtly practiced for at least 2500 years and now not a secret to anyone except fundamentalists; meaning minds which have remained paradoxically stagnant and still, moved only by its own dogma nothing else being comprehensible or acceptable when coming from the outside-in.

At its very root, what theism and secularism do have in common is that it all derives from the same source, namely people and their cultures who have created their own gods; if not true, that old injunction "you shall have no other gods before me" need never have been stated so vehemently as the FIRST COMMANDMENT in the Decalogue. The irony is that the god who spoke it was ITSELF created and disappears when understood who created IT!

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument is that instead of faking laws, and allowing people to say they are obeying them when they are clearly not, we should enforce those laws. Free the slaves. But to do that, and to know we're right in doing that, we need an account of morality that explains why slavery is absolutely wrong, and justifies our stand against it.

It is the laws that provide the grounding for improvement and that humanity can now shift attention to the more finer shades of the modern form of slavery.

Laws don't "ground" anything. Laws themselves have to be grounded IN a universal value.

You can see this very easily, because we can ask the question, "Which laws should we have?" That's a very natural and common question. So to refer only to the authority of laws is to beg the whole question of whether or not the laws in view are themselves moral. If one country has laws that allow for slavery, and another has those that make it illegal, then we would need to refer to a prior standard by which to know which laws were moral.

You and I might take it for granted that slavery is wrong. But it's not obviously wrong in the view of a great many other people, and historically, ours is a minority opinion.

So how do we know we're right? We would need to refer to an ultimate, objective moral standard to show that we were, a standard not susceptible to such variables as local opinion, the numbers game, cultural predispositions and temporality. Then we could safely say, "We know for certain that slavery is wrong, even if people X say it's okay." There's no other way.

Principle of Charity.
I meant laws that are grounded on sound and justified arguments.

Here is one pointer to how the grounded in achieved via reason.
This is just one clue not the complete picture.

Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24813

Why 'slavery' is wrong is grounded on a sub-moral ground of the need to respect the basic human dignity of every human being not to be exploited as a means [object] for the interest of another person.

Every human being [including oneself] has a fundamental generic human state of dignity.
The practice of slavery violate this basic human dignity.
Thus one is insulting one own basic human dignity when one practices slavery.

Why, Why, Why,
There are more deeper groundings to the above WHYs.

Human Rights and other NGOs are consistently highlighting the problem of modern slavery.

Indeed they are. And most of these are disproportionally staffed by Theists. So that makes sense.

Here are the UN statistics on that:

Table 2: Religious affiliation

Religious affiliation / Number of organizations / Percentage of all religious NGOs

Christian 187 @ 58.4 %

Muslim 52 @ 16.3 %

Jewish 22 @ 6.9 %

Buddhist 14 @ 4.4 %

Hindu 3 @ 0.9 %

Spiritual 25 @ 7.8 %

Multireligious 11 @ 3.4 %

Other religions[23] 6 @ 1.9 %

Total 320 100

Note these people did not declare their views are 100% in accordance to the NT nor OT.
It is likely they were driven by their inherent human nature and evolving moral compass and not solidly by their religious doctrines.

For example 80% [conservatively] are moderate [good] Muslims because they are not precisely true Muslims who adhere strictly to the doctrines of the Quran but rather they are good because they are good evolving human beings driven by the inherent progressing moral drive and compass.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

3 You say: 'Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.' And this is simply false.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Then that should be dead easy for you to show. Explain, please, the rationale that runs from the presupposition of Non-Theism to "Therefore, slavery should be resisted."

This is where your understanding is blocked. The existence or non-existence of a god has no moral implications. Nothing is morally right or wrong simply because a god does or doesn't exist. And our belief that a god does or doesn't exist has no moral implications either: 'slavery is wrong simply because I believe a god exists' makes no sense, and neither does 'infant genital mutilation is right simply because I believe a god exists'.

What you really mean to claim is that something is morally right or wrong simply because a god says it is, or because it is or isn't consistent with the god's nature - whatever that means. This amounts to: 'X is morally right/wrong because [God] says it is'. (Insert the entity of your choice.)

That you think this is a 'grounded, rational account of what morality is' demonstrates the intellectual and moral damage often done to believers by your many and various religions. And that you are desperate to defend this grotesque absurdity at all costs demonstrates the iron grip theist ideology can have on its victims.

[uwot]

That you think this is a 'grounded, rational account of what morality is' demonstrates the intellectual and moral damage often done to believers by your many and various religions. And that you are desperate to defend this grotesque absurdity at all costs demonstrates the iron grip theist ideology can have on its victims.

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."
David Hume

[Dubious]

Science combined with modern historical research provides more than enough evidence to completely debunk the three main religious narratives which have enslaved minds for generations going back to Abraham. It's amazing how long it took to even doubt these stories. It also goes to show how vulnerable the human brain is in accepting such nonsense; so powerful yet so gullible.

Human history is a story highlighted and controlled by fiction more than any reality which negates it. Nietzsche already understood as much! Maybe that's what Shakespeare meant when he wrote life is a tale told by an idiot denoting those who can't make sense of existence without embellishing it with the ultra fantastical.

[Belinda]

Perhaps a modified , perhaps pantheist, version of God is true. This modified version of God is basically that reality is ordered and not human mind -dependent.

In this case, that the reasonable version of God is cosmic order, is the case there is unfortunately no case to be made that the cosmic order God is also the source of absolute morality. The good life is not an end or even a means to an end but is all about human aspiration towards the good, the true, and the beautiful.

[Immanuel Can]

In theism its precisely because it's not rational that people believe it...

This simply isn't true.

Now, it would be convenient for Atheists if it were true, so it gets asserted quite often. But the very kindest thing one can say about it is that at most, it represents a very small minority of Theists. As a generalization, it's just plain wrong.

It would also be convenient for Atheists if their own (dis-)belief were supported by empirical evidence. However, that's manifestly not the case, and cannot be.

Truth having always been relative to the society which claims it,

Then this claim is only relatively true, not absolute. There are then societies in which truth is NOT relative. Or is that wrong, and it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth outside of the social? In which case, it's false that there's no absolute truth that is not relative to society, for the truth you just declared is absolute...

And round and round it goes. It's just a circular, self-refuting idea. At no point can it afford to be genuinely true. But if it's not genuinely true, then it's only a local, social assumption.

The irony is that the god who spoke it was ITSELF created and disappears when understood who created IT!

Nietzsche thought that. But he was wrong twice, on that point. Firstly, belief in God was not actually disappearing from the world: it was merely in retreat in the first half of the 20th Century, and then swelled again afterward. Secondly, he had no actual proof that "God" refers only to a concept -- he didn't even try to prove it, in fact. He just took it as a rhetorical flourish.

And that didn't make it so. If he was right, he never knew...because he died at the turn of the 20th Century. If he was wrong, both he and we will know it eventually.

[Immanuel Can]

Principle of Charity.
I meant laws that are grounded on sound and justified arguments.

You should say so. The Principle of Charity requires us to take people at their word. It's certainly not "charitable" to put words they didn't say in their mouths, is it?

But in any case, even were I to insert those words, it would not save the case. There are no such things as "grounded" laws, according to your view, because there's nothing to "ground" them. Unless you now have something?

Why 'slavery' is wrong is grounded on a sub-moral ground of the need to respect the basic human dignity of every human being not to be exploited as a means [object] for the interest of another person.

But to believe this, we have to have a prior principle that says, like Kant said, human beings must be "ends" not merely "means." But how does Kant know that? How does he know that, say Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley or Rand don't have the situation more right, and there are two classes of people, the weak and the strong -- the weak being rightfully viewed as the dross of society, and the strong being the gold? How does Kant know that all human beings are equally, not differently valuable?

He gives us nothing to show that he's got that right. (I think he does have it right, but he has that only by accident or presumption.) He does not ground it in anything. So what rational basis do we have for believing it's true?

Every human being [including oneself] has a fundamental generic human state of dignity.

Why? Why are Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley and Rand all wrong? How do we ground this claim that all human beings are owed "dignity," whatever that is?

Thus one is insulting one own basic human dignity when one practices slavery.

You can't "insult" a thing that hasn't been established by being grounded. And in point of fact, if Darwin et al. are correct, then I maximize my dignity -- to borrow Nietzsche's words, I act like one of the "übermensch" -- when I disregard the moral whining of the weak and act on my "will to power," which is the real source of my "dignity," and that of the human race in general, according to him.

Why are these guys wrong?

Note these people did not declare their views are 100% in accordance to the NT nor OT.

It was not I who grouped all Theists together, regardless of their particular beliefs. It was the UN, and previously, in this conversation, it was actually you.

It is likely they were driven by their inherent human nature and evolving moral compass and not solidly by their religious doctrines.

If that were true, then we should expect that 1) every form of Theism should be equally represented in the statistics, and 2) Atheists and agnostics should contribute an equal amount to charity as all the rest. But as you can see, we find no such thing.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter Holmes wrote:

3 You say: 'Non-Theism provides no rationale by which slavery can be resisted.' And this is simply false.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Then that should be dead easy for you to show. Explain, please, the rationale that runs from the presupposition of Non-Theism to "Therefore, slavery should be resisted."

This is where your understanding is blocked. The existence or non-existence of a god has no moral implications.

Well, that is undeniably true of the postulate of the non-existence of God. Atheism has zero to add to the moral equation, I agree. That's why it's so utterly useless for doing essential tasks like grounding a conception of justice, organizing a society, specifying educational values, establishing laws, and so on...it's just a eunuch in the moral realm.

But the same is definitely not true of certain types of Theism -- even of those in which I do not happen to believe. For example, I'm definitely no friend of Islam: but even I can recognize that IF "Allah" was the right description of God, and "Allah" existed and had spoken through Mohammed, then an Islamic society would have grounds for particular moral precepts. That "Allah" is not real, and is a misdescription of the nature of God, is the only thing that makes that untrue. But even I can recognize that their fault is in their departure from the facts.

And you can see that too, I'm sure, Peter. IF there were a God, and IF He had a moral nature and had given moral directives, there would be absolutely no problem in saying morality was objective. Your only rational objection has to be that you simply don't believe God exists or has spoken. If He has, it's clear sailing for morality.

What you really mean to claim is that something is morally right or wrong simply because a god says it is, or because it is or isn't consistent with the god's nature - whatever that means. This amounts to: 'X is morally right/wrong because [God] says it is'.

Not quite. You're on the right track, in a way, but you're only partly to what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the whole nature of reality has objective moral weight, because the Creator has a particular moral character, and a particular revelation of what is consistent with that character to human beings. And I would even argue that part of that knowledge is written on your conscience, since you are a created being, and have moral awareness.

Your ire at (what you take to be) my unfairness, intransigence, or unjustness in response means you have a sense of fairness. And you feel passionately that I am not being "fair" to your view, no?

Well, what is "fairness," and where did you ever get that idea? Who said you were owed this "fairness"? And how can "fairness" be any objective thing at all? But if it's merely subjective, then why has the impersonal process of evolution created in you this weird intuition that reality (or I, for that matter) owes you "fairness"?

If you can be mad at me, you have a moral awareness. Either that awareness refers to something objectively real, or it does not. But if it's merely subjective, then your whole disgruntlement with me amounts to nothing more than a contingent feeling, not a reality.

In which case, what are you protesting?

[uwot]

IF there were a God, and IF He had a moral nature and had given moral directives, there would be absolutely no problem in saying morality was objective.

So which comes first Mr Can? Is God moral because he has a moral nature, or is his nature moral because he says so? In the first instance god is no longer supreme, because his supremeyness is dependent on the even more supreme morality. In the second, morality is just the whim of a being who, let's remind ourselves, holds every human born responsible for the act of two people, who could only find it in his heart to forgive us once he had his son crucified and who will torture forever anyone who questions his authority.