Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.

Why should we or ought we to eliminate evil to enable its related good? Is it a fact that we should, or a matter of opinion?

I have already told you a "million" times your 'what is factual' is 'fartual', fatuous and illusory.

What is really factual has to be a FSK-ed fact.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

Your sense of fartual' is illusory.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

I have already given you a clue there is biological oughts, e.g. the obvious;
ALL normal humans [without exceptions] are programmed with an oughtness-to-breathe which is physical represented by physical neurons conditioned upon the science biology FSK.
Exceptions are the suicidal where they are not normal and has damages to their inherent oughtness-to-breathe algorithm.

Similarly there are the inherent ought-not-ness-to-commit-evil-acts program and potential in ALL humans albeit not active [within a Normal Distribution] in all humans.
No other parties can force this ought-not-ness-to-commit-evil-acts program on others except the individual must let this ought-not-ness-to-commit-evil-acts program to unfold itself spontaneously.

What is evil are norms i.e. thoughts and acts that are net-negative to the well being of human[s], humanity and the human species.

Why should we or ought we to eliminate or reduce thoughts and acts that are net-negative to the well being of human[s], humanity and the human species'? Is it a fact that we should, or a matter of opinion?

As above, no other parties can force this ought-not-ness-to-commit-evil-acts program on others except the individual must let this ought-not-ness-to-commit-evil-acts program to unfold itself as spontaneously as the oughtness to breathe.

1. Human nature is an objective fact [science biological FSK].

Appeals to 'human nature' - beyond our evolved biology - are notoriously subjective and partisan.

I am referring to human nature as represented by its physical features which are evident as conditioned upon the science-biological-psychological FSK.
For example, it is human nature of the ought-ness to breathe and others evident oughts [to drink water, eat food, etc.], how can they be subjective and based on opinions, beliefs and judgment of an individual.

The concepts of morality are so evident and common sense within human nature. It is just because you are so delusional [absolute mind-independence], you are unable to grasp morality in the physical and objective sense.

2. Morality is part and parcel of human nature [evidently, common sense].

True, human communities have developed - and are developing - moral values and codes. But there's no reason to conclude that this is a product of 'human nature'.

Again you are so ignorant and delusional.
Take the moral element 'all normal humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is a norm as inherent within human nature and it has to be represented by its neural correlates and thus makes it an objective moral fact within a human-based moral FSK.

3. Morality is an objective fact.

False - if even coherent.

You cannot grasp that because you are delusional with your philosophical grounding on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
I have repeated this a 'million' times and to avoid repetition, I raised this thread
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
but you are running away from it so you can keep repeating your ignorant response.

[Will Bouwman]

I have a source for that, of course...

Well, I googled those words and again it appears you know something that Google doesn't. What is your source?

I'm an objectivist. The Source is God.

Just to remind you, this is what I was asking the source for:

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?"

If He says, "Take responsibility for yourself," then it's amoral imperative. Even a complete Atheist would have to recognize that IF God existed, that would be enough to make that a reality. He can just comfort himself on that with his conviction that God doesn't exist.

Well, I'm not what you call an Atheist, so I have no idea what such a person would have to recognise. I'm what I call an atheist: I don't take any comfort from a conviction that God doesn't exist, but unlike you, nor do I take any comfort from a conviction that God does exist. Without that conviction, none of the arguments for God are compelling. So you are right, it is a big "IF God existed". Then it's another big if whether he says anything about how we should behave, bigger still that he says "Take responsibility for yourself".

But what does the Atheist himself have as a source for a moral axiom like that? Himself? Nature? Society?

You would have to find someone who conforms to your notion of "Atheist" and ask them, but as an atheist, all of the above. I don't think it is a coincidence that I share core values with my society, or with a species that depends on cooperation for its success and even survival.

Obviouslly, none of these are adequate to rationalize the axiom, "We have to take responsibility for ourselves." And since it can be doubted, he's in a bit of a pickle there.

Frankly I don't care if axioms are rationalised. Looking at it from my philosophy of science perspective moral axioms share this with scientific theories: they don't have to be true, they simply have to work.

[Skepdick]

Looking at it from my philosophy of science perspective moral axioms share this with scientific theories: they don't have to be true, they simply have to work.

Seems you've drawn too great a distinction between truth and utility there...

Is it true that your moral theories work? What makes the utility true?

[Immanuel Can]

Re morality, we have to set aside the perspective of Atheism...

No, we won't be doing that. It's central.

I understand you will insist...

Thank you for being so "understanding."

[Immanuel Can]

Just to remind you, this is what I was asking the source for:

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?"

I answered, but maybe didn't make it quite clear.

The source of authority for Theism is reality. Theism believes there's a God; and if Theism is right about that, then a statement like, "You owe it to take responsibility" could potentially be grounded in reality itself. Locke thought that's how it was, actually.

But here's the problem for Atheism: if Atheism is wrong about how the world is ordered, then of course it would lack warrant for saying that people ought to take responsiblity. But here's the kicker: even if Atheism's worldview were right, that there's no God, then Atheism would STILL lack a source of authority for that axiom.

In other words, Theism could potentially provide a reality-based, grounded view of morality, if there is a God; but Atheism can NEVER do it, under any conditions.

I don't take any comfort from a conviction that God doesn't exist, but unlike you, nor do I take any comfort from a conviction that God does exist.

Okay: can I ask about that?

Which of the following (or something else) is closest to a fair reading of your beliefs on that:

1) There may or may not be a God, and I simply don't know.

2) There may or may not be a God, but I think there's not.

3) There may or may not be a God, but I sometimes suspect there could be.

...it is a big "IF God existed".

I'm offering it to you as a hypothetical, not a conclusion. I'm just saying that IF X were so, then Y would follow. I'm not trying to ignore or short-circuit your conviction to the contrary. That's why I didn't word it as, "Since..." but as "If..."

Then it's another big if whether he says anything about how we should behave, bigger still that he says "Take responsibility for yourself".

Locke has a line of logic for that one, actually.

But what does the Atheist himself have as a source for a moral axiom like that? Himself? Nature? Society?

...all of the above.

But none are any good for that. They don't work as sources of moral information or justfication. For one thing, they're all contingent beings. So they can't function for that.

Obviouslly, none of these are adequate to rationalize the axiom, "We have to take responsibility for ourselves." And since it can be doubted, he's in a bit of a pickle there.

Frankly I don't care if axioms are rationalised.

Maybe you should.

If somebody offers you an irrational axiom, or one for which they have no rationale you should believe, why would you "not care" and just believe them?

Looking at it from my philosophy of science perspective moral axioms share this with scientific theories: they don't have to be true, they simply have to work.

That doesn't solve anything at all, though; it just moves the question back one step, but makes it just as pressing.

A skeptic or doubter could fairly ask, "'Work' for what?" Or "Why should I accept what 'works' for you, when maybe it doesn't 'work' for what I want to do?" Or again, "Who made you the arbitor of how things ought to 'work,' or what they should 'work' for?"

And without an answer, all you could tell him is something like, "You should just accept that whatever I say a thing 'works' for, that's what it should 'work' for," or "Shut up: I have a gun." Neither is a very "moral" answer, though, right?

[Peter Holmes]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

[Immanuel Can]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

Explain.

[FlashDangerpants]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and scariest thingy, your criticism has merit as that's still opinion.

If they hold that there is a true nature or essence of things which God knows and humans cannot, and that therefore God is the only being that can tell you what really is really really really true about morality, then they are selling an objectivist moral theory, however they are also saying there is no way for you to investigate objective moral fact other than second hand reports in scripture, which is technically an error theory with a deus ex machina get out clause.

And that's before we get into whether it is all just God's tastes, preferences, and opinions really and he happens to be lying whern he says it is something better than that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is it wise to feed his mania?

I can't imagine it going hungry.

Fair comment.

But he's already struggling to internalise the notion that morality can work as a simple set of human practices and doesn't need to be written in tablets of stone somewhere in the sky. Further to that, he cannot at all compute that many of us think morality better explains the creation of religion than religion explains the creation of morality. I know he says he understands these things, and in his own mind I'm sure that's what he believes.... but his counterarguments amount to nothing but your antirealism must be wrong because otherwise your morals aren't real but morals have to be real or else I panic, and only if morals are facts is the outcome satisfactory to my moral tastes, therefore morals are true, which tends to demonstrate he's suffering dissonance and cannot work with these concepts.

It just seems a bit mean to dangle the possibility that you actually think your morals are underwritten by atheism, rather than just that they can live side by side with it.

[Peter Holmes]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and scariest thingy, your criticism has merit as that's still opinion.

If they hold that there is a true nature or essence of things which God knows and humans cannot, and that therefore God is the only being that can tell you what really is really really really true about morality, then they are selling an objectivist moral theory, however they are also saying there is no way for you to investigate objective moral fact other than second hand reports in scripture, which is technically an error theory with a deus ex machina get out clause.

And that's before we get into whether it is all just God's tastes, preferences, and opinions really and he happens to be lying when he says it is something better than that.

Thanks, but I disagree. I think the following is invalid for any agent, how ever defined.

Premise: A thinks X is morally wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally wrong.

Even if A = the designer and creator of everything, who knows the 'true nature and essence of things' and has a plan for human beings, etc - the moral conclusion doesn't follow. There's no 'what really is really really really true about morality'. Theistic moral objectivism is a subjectivist theory pretending not to be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

Philosophical realism claims reality and things are absolutely mind independent as such are objective or objective reality.
Theism is grounded on philosophical realism, thus claims God, reality and things are absolutely mind independent as such are objective or objective reality.
Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, supremely perfect, God moral commands are not opinions, beliefs or judgments. They are God-based Facts as constituted within the holy books.
A theist thus belief there are mind-independent facts [God-based] as grounded on philosophical realism, thus a theist in this sense is a moral objectivist.
Since you are a philosophical realist [& not fully confident God does not exists], you have to accept theists like IC are moral objectivists.
Besides, no theists will claim to be moral relativists and rightly so.

Anything that is FSK-ed is objective [collective subjects], but there is a continuum of objectivity from 0-100.
As an ANTI-philosophical_realist [my type], I am confident it is impossible for God to exists as real, rather the theistic God is a reified illusion.
On that basis, whilst theists are moral objectivists, the objectivity is negligible.

You are a moral relativists because you believe morality exists but it is up the views of each group [or moral subjectivist if up to each individual].

Even if A = the designer and creator of everything, who knows the 'true nature and essence of things' and has a plan for human beings, etc - the moral conclusion doesn't follow.
There's no 'what really is really really really true about morality'. Theistic moral objectivism is a subjectivist theory pretending not to be.

Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, supremely perfect, God moral commands are not opinions, beliefs or judgments. As claimed by theists, they are God-based Facts as constituted within the holy books from a real mind-independent God.

Can you prove [based on your philosophical realism] "There's no 'what really is really really really true about morality'?"

[FlashDangerpants]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and scariest thingy, your criticism has merit as that's still opinion.

If they hold that there is a true nature or essence of things which God knows and humans cannot, and that therefore God is the only being that can tell you what really is really really really true about morality, then they are selling an objectivist moral theory, however they are also saying there is no way for you to investigate objective moral fact other than second hand reports in scripture, which is technically an error theory with a deus ex machina get out clause.

And that's before we get into whether it is all just God's tastes, preferences, and opinions really and he happens to be lying when he says it is something better than that.

Thanks, but I disagree. I think the following is invalid for any agent, how ever defined.

Premise: A thinks X is morally wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally wrong.

Even if A = the designer and creator of everything, who knows the 'true nature and essence of things' and has a plan for human beings, etc - the moral conclusion doesn't follow. There's no 'what really is really really really true about morality'. Theistic moral objectivism is a subjectivist theory pretending not to be.

Your counterpart in such a debate always has some way or other that they habitually get out of the Euthyphro thing with. Whatever formula they use, it will probably never justify the premise "A thinks X is morally wrong" because A will know or some aspect of A makes X morally wrong or else, by some convoluted theistical alchemy, some ineffable combination of the designs/nature/wishes/knowledge of A (at least two things) assigns wrongess to X.

The upshot is likely to be that they escape your premise but cannot offer any plausible explanation of what it is about X that actually makes the thing wrong.

[Skepdick]

Wow. Such intellect. Such brilliance! Such insight! A question that strikes at the heart of the matter of morality!

The upshot is likely to be that they escape your premise but cannot offer any plausible explanation of what it is about X that actually makes the thing wrong.

And when I recontextualize and re-use your entire line of reasoning and aim it at a simple color you can't offer any plausible explanation of what it is about this color that actually makes it red.

Suddenly you scramble for the hills of dismissal with appeal to "boredom" or "lack of interest", or "triviality" or some other lame excuse.

And yet the wrongness of any given act is the exact same issue as the redness of the image below.

[Atla]

If the source for your morality is your team's god, then you're not a moral objectivist, by definition.

That depends on how they explain the deity as the source of the info about rigth and wrong. For a simple divine command theory, in which God's opinion is the best because God is the biggest and scariest thingy, your criticism has merit as that's still opinion.

If they hold that there is a true nature or essence of things which God knows and humans cannot, and that therefore God is the only being that can tell you what really is really really really true about morality, then they are selling an objectivist moral theory, however they are also saying there is no way for you to investigate objective moral fact other than second hand reports in scripture, which is technically an error theory with a deus ex machina get out clause.

And that's before we get into whether it is all just God's tastes, preferences, and opinions really and he happens to be lying when he says it is something better than that.

Thanks, but I disagree. I think the following is invalid for any agent, how ever defined.

Premise: A thinks X is morally wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally wrong.

Even if A = the designer and creator of everything, who knows the 'true nature and essence of things' and has a plan for human beings, etc - the moral conclusion doesn't follow. There's no 'what really is really really really true about morality'. Theistic moral objectivism is a subjectivist theory pretending not to be.

Again: why couldn't an omnipotent God make the 'true nature and essence of things' inherently moral?

Or better yet, why couldn't the 'true nature and essence of things' be inherently moral even without any God?

[Skepdick]

Again: why couldn't an omnipotent God make the 'true nature and essence of things' inherently moral?

Or better yet, why couldn't the 'true nature and essence of things' be inherently moral even without any God?

Because epistemology.

How would you know whether the true esence of things is moral or immoral? Irrespective of origin.