Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

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.

This is an example of not being able to grasp context .

[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.

This is an example of not being able to grasp context .

I know. That's why I am contextualizing it for you - so you can grasp it.

An omnipotent God can make the true nature and essence of things however the fuck he wants.

He can make it inherently moral.
He can make it inherently immoral.

How would you know which way God made it?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

Okay. I think the get-outs all fail, because they boil down to special pleading: for one case only - viz, my team's god - what A says is morally right and wrong is morally right and wrong. Nature and emanation - instead of command - arguments make no difference. And the subjectivism is glaringly obvious.

[Skepdick]

Okay. I think the get-outs all fail, because they boil down to special pleading: for one case only - viz, my team's god - what A says is morally right and wrong is morally right and wrong. Nature and emanation - instead of command - arguments make no difference. And the subjectivism is glaringly obvious.

Q.E.D

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't understand how the social construct we call "objectivity" works in practice.

What makes this objectively red other than the fact we all say so?

[Atla]

Because epistemology.

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

This is an example of not being able to grasp context .

I know. That's why I am contextualizing it for you - so you can grasp it.

An omnipotent God can make the true nature and essence of things however the fuck he wants.

He can make it inherently moral.
He can make it inherently immoral.

How would you know which way God made it?

Another issue. Again, this is an example of not being able to grasp context.

[Skepdick]

This is an example of not being able to grasp context .

I know. That's why I am contextualizing it for you - so you can grasp it.

An omnipotent God can make the true nature and essence of things however the fuck he wants.

He can make it inherently moral.
He can make it inherently immoral.

How would you know which way God made it?

Another issue. Again, this is an example of not being able to grasp context.

OK. Given my contextualization/explanation why are you still struggling to gasp the context?

[Atla]

I know. That's why I am contextualizing it for you - so you can grasp it.

An omnipotent God can make the true nature and essence of things however the fuck he wants.

He can make it inherently moral.
He can make it inherently immoral.

How would you know which way God made it?

Another issue. Again, this is an example of not being able to grasp context.

OK. Given my contextualization/explanation why are you still struggling to gasp the context?

I'm not struggling with anything.

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat.

Though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. If it did, then agreement on the use of words in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' would constitute a fact. And it doesn't.

What makes what we call a red square a red square has nothing to do with what we call it. We could call it a blue circle, but that wouldn't change what it is.

People excepted, features of reality don't identify, name or describe themselves. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is.

[Skepdick]

I'm not struggling with anything.

OK, so it's a struggle-free failure to grasp context.

They say ignorance is bliss - perhaps it's true?

[Skepdick]

To repeat.

Though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. If it did, then agreement on the use of words in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' would constitute a fact. And it doesn't.

Telling us what doesn't constitute objectivity doesn't tell us what does.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is evasive as usual.

What makes this color objectively red? Why do you refuse to answer the question?



If we all agreed that this is a pink unicorn then there it's absolutely a fact that there is a pink unicorn on the moon!

[Harbal]

If we all agreed that this is a pink unicorn then there it's absolutely a fact that there is a pink unicorn on the moon!

Is that why you want us all to believe you are a policeman? In the hope that it will become a fact?

[Skepdick]

Is that why you want us all to believe you are a policeman? In the hope that it will become a fact?

I don't really care.

The thing with facts is that they are true whether you believe them or not.

[Atla]

I'm not struggling with anything.

OK, so it's a struggle-free failure to grasp context.

They say ignorance is bliss - perhaps it's true?

This is an example of not grasping the bigger context. When humans do a discussion, they don't change the topic after every few sentences, like you seem to demand it.

[Skepdick]

I'm not struggling with anything.

OK, so it's a struggle-free failure to grasp context.

They say ignorance is bliss - perhaps it's true?

This is an example of not grasping the bigger context. When humans do a discussion, they don't change the topic after every few sentences, like you seem to demand it.

I'm still on topic...

How do you know whether the true nature and essence of things is inherently moral or immoral?

But when you have a dysfunctional brain which is incapable of grasping the bigger context you can be forgiven for thinking the question is off-topic.

Your inherent dysfunction is the inability to communicate. It's a learned skill for sure.

[Atla]

OK, so it's a struggle-free failure to grasp context.

They say ignorance is bliss - perhaps it's true?

This is an example of not grasping the bigger context. When humans do a discussion, they don't change the topic after every few sentences, like you seem to demand it.

I'm still on topic...

How do you know whether the true nature and essence of things is inherently moral or immoral?

But when you have a dysfunctional brain which is incapable of grasping the bigger context you can be forgiven for thinking the question is off-topic.

Your inherent dysfunction is the inability to communicate. It's a learned skill for sure.

It's not on topic when we first need to establish whether or not we even agree that the true nature can be inherently moral or immoral.