What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

It wasn't on point. I will say for the third time, my skepticism was directed to the horses you were backing at the moment.

Society? Is there another horse?

[Immanuel Can]

It wasn't on point. I will say for the third time, my skepticism was directed to the horses you were backing at the moment.

Society? Is there another horse?

I wonder how your faith in society managed to survive the wars, genocides and purges of the last century.

[TimeSeeker]

I wonder how your faith in society managed to survive the wars, genocides and purges of the last century.

We won. At great costs.

You aren't speaking German now - there's a sign

[TimeSeeker]

But I am trying to turn your focus to the elephant in the room.

Disease has killed more people in the last 100 years than the wars!

Why do you lament one kind of unnecessary death over another?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder how your faith in society managed to survive the wars, genocides and purges of the last century.

We won. At great costs.

You aren't speaking German now - there's a sign

That's the only war you remember?

[Ginkgo]

Why do you suppose so?

Because there isn't a theory of God and/or morality that is not subject to criticism.

There isn't ANY point of view that is not subject to criticism. The question is not "are there critics," but "are the criticisms apt or inappropriate to the facts."

If God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded. The presence of "critics" has no effect on that, one way or the other: their approval would not make God exist if He did not, and would not make morality objective if it's not. But likewise, their disapproval cannot make God not-exist, and cannot make morality not-objective. In both cases, things are as they are, regardless of opinion, as I'm sure you know.

If God's existence or non-existence is 'outside' the critics then you have no way of determining the truth or falsity of the matter. All that is left is a belief in the existence or non-existence of God.

I would also dispute your claim that if God exists we have a moral grounding. Such a claim only invites the Euthyphro Dilemma, or is your moral grounding 'outside' the critics?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded. The presence of "critics" has no effect on that, one way or the other: their approval would not make God exist if He did not, and would not make morality objective if it's not. But likewise, their disapproval cannot make God not-exist, and cannot make morality not-objective. In both cases, things are as they are, regardless of opinion, as I'm sure you know.

"IF" a big IF.
Yes, if God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded.
Such a God has to be an ontological God, i.e. absolute perfect.
In any case, it is only objective to those who believe God exists.

But the reality is;

God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

thus;
"IF God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded"
is moot i.e. ultimately premised on a conditional postulation.

Nonetheless I agree there is an existing theological moral model with 'objective' grounds that is effective to some degrees which is confined to theists only. But this model is based on an illusion that God exists as real.

Such a theological moral model based on an illusory God had opened itself to abuse with the inclusion of evil laden elements that had compelled believers to commit terrible evils and violence besides any good. The trend of evil acts from the theistic moral model is moving in a net-negative mode with the potential of exterminating the human species.

As such, humanity must wean off theism [based on illusory grounds] and replace the theological moral model with one that is secular and fool proof to avoid the extinction of the human species by human evil acts.
This is possible with an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [guided by the Kantian model].

[TimeSeeker]

I wonder how your faith in society managed to survive the wars, genocides and purges of the last century.

We won. At great costs.

You aren't speaking German now - there's a sign

That's the only war you remember?

The only one that killed 100 million people. Same as mosquitos in the last century.

I can add heart disease, diabetes and lung disease to my score sheet!
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... s-of-death

Hitler and Mao were underachievers compared to what Entropy is doing to us!

[uwot]

Just so, you can recognize the works of God as indicative of His existence...

You are putting the cart before the horse, Mr Can. First you have to demonstrate your god's existence before you can recognise anything as its works.

[Immanuel Can]

If God's existence or non-existence is 'outside' the critics then you have no way of determining the truth or falsity of the matter.

Let me clarify. The fact of His existence does not depend on the opinion of any critic, one way or the other. The question of our knowledge in determining the truth of that fact is a different question. We must not confuse ontology with epistemology.

To illustrate: the planet Neptune existed before any human being knew it did. But until we knew it did, we had no incentive to reckon its existence into our astronomy. Yet those remained distinct issues. Neptune still served as a keystone of our solar system, even when we were oblivious to it. And once we were aware of it, it changed all our calculations.

All that is left is a belief in the existence or non-existence of God.

This is the epistemological issue. And you're right...if God had not spoken, then that is precisely all we would have. And belief either way would be completely gratuitous.

But has God spoken?

I would also dispute your claim that if God exists we have a moral grounding. Such a claim only invites the Euthyphro Dilemma, or is your moral grounding 'outside' the critics?

The Euthyphro Question is very easily solvable. If you read the relevant passage, you'll see that Socrates himself specifies explicitly that it is a problem only inherent to Polytheism. He says very clearly that it is because "the gods" love different things that the whole question can arise. So those critics who continue to rely in a cavalier fashion on the Euthyphro Problem as a show-stopper are rejoicing far too early; they haven't really read it. For if "what God approves" and "the Good" are identical, then there can be no either-or problem of which is to be preferred: that would be like asking "if Ginko is the author of this message, or the author of this message is Ginko." The question itself simply becomes a confusion of identical terms.

To sum up: it's only if we have a singular, Supreme Being with a moral identity and a specific revelation of that moral identity that we can speak of morality being objectively grounded. But if that is what we have, we certainly can...and must...speak of morality in those terms.

[Immanuel Can]

If God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded. The presence of "critics" has no effect on that, one way or the other: their approval would not make God exist if He did not, and would not make morality objective if it's not. But likewise, their disapproval cannot make God not-exist, and cannot make morality not-objective. In both cases, things are as they are, regardless of opinion, as I'm sure you know.

"IF" a big IF.
Yes, if God exists, then morality can be objective and grounded.
Such a God has to be an ontological God, i.e. absolute perfect.
In any case, it is only objective to those who believe God exists.

No. "Objective" things exist regardless of the perceptions of the perceiver. If you "objectively" have cancer, it will make no difference if you don't know you do.

But the reality is;

God is an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

This starts with an argument that has been subsequently thoroughly debunked. Anyone who reads that strand will see it has been. Any refusal to recognize that would merely be one further example of why "objective" does not depend on the approval of any particular percipient. Percipients can be wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Hitler and Mao were underachievers compared to what Entropy is doing to us!

Yet another illustration of why our sense of control is a delusion. We all age.

If you're 35, you are starting to realize that in an existential way, perhaps for the first time, as many people don't really know it until middle age. Until then, for many, it remains merely a theory, a thing that happens to "old people". Somehow, they feel that personally, by their sheer will and freshness of enthusiasm, they might manage to float above that harsh fact -- for at least as long as it matters. But of course, they are quite wrong. And they find that out inevitably.

Moreover, we all die...that is the outcome of entropy.

It is also the consequence of our alienation from the Source of Life, as a result of our personal and collective moral turpitude. As the Scriptures put it, "The wages of sin is death." That's entropy writ large.

[TimeSeeker]

No. "Objective" things exist regardless of the perceptions of the perceiver. If you "objectively" have cancer, it will make no difference if you don't know you do.

Fallacy of gray.

Of course it makes a difference! An epistemic difference. If I don't know I have cancer - I do nothing. If I know I have cancer - I go to chemo.

Statistically - those who know they have cancer and treat it have higher SURVIVAL RATE.

Percipients can be wrong.

They can be right also.

[TimeSeeker]

Yet another illustration of why our sense of control is a delusion. We all age.

Fallacy of gray. Again.

Median age in 3000BC - under 40.
Median age in 2018 - 65

Moreover, we all die...that is the outcome of entropy.

And yet - here you are. Not committing suicide!

In economics - we call this revealed preference. You obviously LIKE the part between the "birth" and the "dying".

It's like that crazy girlfriend of yours - who threatens to kill herself but never does. Stated vs revealed preferences. Or as your grandmother said - actions speak louder than words.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course it makes a difference! An epistemic difference. If I don't know I do - I do nothing. If I know I have cancer - I go to chemo.

That's a difference in action, subsequent to knowledge, not a difference in knowledge itself. Epistemology deals only with what we can or cannot know.

Percipients can be wrong.

They can't be right either.

Is that statement "right"?