Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dontaskme]

It doesn't work quite like that. Before you get to the "so God must exist" bit, you have to subject yourself to mind conditioning until your previous world view starts to look completely irrational, and only then will you be ready to receive the truth.

It's becoming more and more obvious and clear to me, the very idea that life managed to get off it's own starting block at all, is and always was a complete mystery to the human mind. That's why people are continuing to muse over the conumdrum even today, and are still left with no idea how to put their findings into coherent words that EVERYONE can understand. Even the Nonduality writers, the Bible writers and the Quran writers...all sorts of human authors, failed to do it.

And that is why the mind rejects the irrational in favor of the rational, it doesn't like the not-knowingness of anything. It has to make-up some kind of coherent story it can be satisfied with, I mean what can the mind do with nothing. Hmm, now lets think about this for a minute, what can I impose upon this blank canvas with my colouring pencils!

Seems many authors appear, and there are many stories as there are authors...but WHO or WHAT is reading? that's the unsolvable mystery that no human mind can get beyond. Except IC of course. So I guess we ought to just play along and agree with him, because honestly, if IC ascertains the existence of God as an objective truth, then God really must be true. Why, because IC can demonstrate God exists. So I don't know about you Harbal, but I'm all ears. I cannot wait to see his demonstration in his own words, and not the words he's read from someone else's story. I wonder what they'll say. Eagerly awaits!

[Harbal]

Seems many authors appear, and there are many stories as there are authors...but WHO or WHAT is reading? that's the unsolvable mystery that no human mind can get beyond. Except IC of course. So I guess we ought to just play along and agree with him, because honestly, if IC ascertains the existence of God as an objective truth, then God really must be true. Why, because IC can demonstrate God exists. So I don't know about you Harbal, but I'm all ears. I cannot wait to see his demonstration in his own words, and not the words he's read from someone else's story. I wonder what they'll say. Eagerly awaits!

I don't actually find the idea of God all that incredible, because if there is one underlying reality to the universe -or existence, or whatever you want to call it- I feel certain it will be something we just can't get our heads round, but will be no less fantastic than God. So I don't think it unreasonable to wonder if there might be some sort of god, it's just that I don't think there is any reason to actually believe there is. With a bit of imagination, one could come up with any number of wild and wonderful theories, and that is exactly what some people do.

Believing there must be a god is one thing, but it is when people start filling in the details that things start to become ridiculous. As strange as it may sound, I think the gods of Greek mythology behave in a more believable way than the God of the Bible. The Abrahamic God has to be the most irrational and erratic being imaginable. I'm tempted to say you couldn't make it up, except somebody obviously did.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sure God will not be upset over some choice words.

You can be sure of the opposite.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

And I thought "liberals" were "snowflakes" who didn't like "free speech".

[Gary Childress]

I'm tempted to say you couldn't make it up, except somebody obviously did.

It's pretty easy to see where a human being would attribute human characteristics and flaws (jealousy, anger, desire to control) to our own God.

[Harbal]

I'm tempted to say you couldn't make it up, except somebody obviously did.

It's pretty easy to see where a human being would attribute human characteristics and flaws (jealousy, anger, desire to control) to our own God.

But then in the next breath we are told that God's ways are beyond human understanding.

[Skepdick]

But then in the next breath we are told that God's ways are beyond human understanding.

Well, duh! Human heuristics which are approximate understanding don't amount to total understanding of how morality emerges, evolves and takes hold.

Do you understand how morality works? No, you don't. You have some shitty theory that helps you talk about it, but it doesn't amount to anything resembling scientific understanding.

So yeah... Morality's ways are beyond human understanding. You can wave your hands in the air and say things like "empathy", "reciprocity", "no harm", "capriciousness", "inconsistent". You can use metaphors from biology to say that it "evolves" and it behaves like a living organism; and that's probably all true in some sense.

But do we actually understand morality; or is it beyond human understanding?

[Harbal]

But then in the next breath we are told that God's ways are beyond human understanding.

Well, duh! Human heuristics which are approximate understanding don't amount to total understanding of how morality emerges, evolves and takes hold.

Do you understand how morality works? No, you don't. You have some shitty theory that helps you talk about it, but it doesn't amount to anything resembling scientific understanding.

So yeah... Morality's ways are beyond human understanding. You can wave your hands in the air and say things like "empathy", "reciprocity", "no harm", "capriciousness", "inconsistent". You can use metaphors from biology to say that it "evolves" and it behaves like a living organism; and that's probably all true in some sense.

But do we actually understand morality; or is it beyond human understanding?

I was talking about God, not morality.

[Skepdick]

But then in the next breath we are told that God's ways are beyond human understanding.

Well, duh! Human heuristics which are approximate understanding don't amount to total understanding of how morality emerges, evolves and takes hold.

Do you understand how morality works? No, you don't. You have some shitty theory that helps you talk about it, but it doesn't amount to anything resembling scientific understanding.

So yeah... Morality's ways are beyond human understanding. You can wave your hands in the air and say things like "empathy", "reciprocity", "no harm", "capriciousness", "inconsistent". You can use metaphors from biology to say that it "evolves" and it behaves like a living organism; and that's probably all true in some sense.

But do we actually understand morality; or is it beyond human understanding?

I was talking about God, not morality.

Ooooh, right. You were talking about The Moral Authority, not Morality.

[Harbal]

Well, duh! Human heuristics which are approximate understanding don't amount to total understanding of how morality emerges, evolves and takes hold.

Do you understand how morality works? No, you don't. You have some shitty theory that helps you talk about it, but it doesn't amount to anything resembling scientific understanding.

So yeah... Morality's ways are beyond human understanding. You can wave your hands in the air and say things like "empathy", "reciprocity", "no harm", "capriciousness", "inconsistent". You can use metaphors from biology to say that it "evolves" and it behaves like a living organism; and that's probably all true in some sense.

But do we actually understand morality; or is it beyond human understanding?

I was talking about God, not morality.

Ooooh, right. You were talking about The Moral Authority, not Morality.

[Immanuel Can]

People with subjective moralities establish an agreement that they owe duty or obligation to this thing or that thing, or else.

Or else what? Or else they change their feeling, and owe nothing?

...those who don't follow it get punished by the others.

Well, that's called "raw power." It has nothing to do with morality. Raw power can be used to make others do practically anything.

If you don't obey Stalin, you get shot; if you don't obey Hamas, you get your throat slit...it's hard to see how obedience to Hamas or Stalin, therefore, would be something we'd call "moral." It looks merely fearful.

Raw power is what objective morality uses too

Sometimes it does. But you're skipping the essential point: when any proponent of an objective morality does that, it's IMMORAL. When any subjectivist does it, it's JUST FINE. In fact, you're saying that raw power isn't just something subjective morality uses, perhaps after the fact of issuing a moral ruling; you're saying it IS WHAT THE BASIS OF ALL MORALITY REALLY IS.

Those are very different claims. Your observation is that all rules, of any kind, can be, and often are, enforced by way of power. My counter is that objective morality is the only possibility for resisting the belief that "morality" is, itself, noting BUT a product of raw power.

For example, John Locke, the 'father' of all our universal human rights language, said that to suppress the conscience of another by way of power was not merely to do something self-defeating (because conscience is free, even when actions are repressed) but is actually to work against human rights and against the Creator, who made men to have free consciences. So there, objective morality does not resort to raw power, but to intellectual and moral persuasion. And raw power is the enemy of morality, not the substance of morality, as you seem to be saying it is.

Raw power is also what the justice system is based on. Is there any other way?

Yes, there's another way to go: the moral way. This means to appeal to conscience through intellectual, rational and factual persuasion, leaving the hearer free to do the right or wrong thing. (Still understanding that choices are never consequence-free, of course. Being free to choose doesn't mean all choices get to be painless in consequence.)

You'd have to explain how that was possible.

The Materialist and Physicalist types will say it's simply not possible: we're here as the result of a cosmic accident (the Big Bang, or more precisely, whatever chain of events led up to the Big Bang), so there is no meaning "in the very fabric of existence," anymore than there's a meaning in a paint splatter that fell from your paintbrush on a Saturday morning of painting. Any meaning that we think we perceive is only a result of us fooling ourselves; the truth is, it's a paint splatter, and random.

"Cosmic accident" is a made-up fairy tale element,

Not at all. It's what they insist is the case. They might use language like, "elements X, Y and Z combined and created an explosion called 'Big Bang'" but it means exactly the same thing -- that what set the universe into existence was not something that had any intention, order or purpose at all, but rather an accidental coming together of non-sentient elements, resulting in an explosion.

That's an "accident," by definition. You might not find the word appealing; but that's because it's also a deceptive explanation, and deceptive explanations often sound hokey when put in literal terms.

Which may never happen because we are looking at an observable universe that's compatible with human life, but such a world looks almost infinitely improbable, it looks like an accident.

If something is infinitely improbable, then it looks less like an accident, not more.

If you go to the casino, and on the roulette table, the number 21 turns up twenty one times in a row, what is the more likely explanation:

1. That was an amazing accident.

2. The roulette wheel has been somehow rigged to do that.

And if you think the answer to that one is obvious, consider that the chances this universe happened by accident is literally billions of times more unlikely than that, (https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html) I think you should accept the interpretation of the evidence that is more likely, don't you?

[Immanuel Can]

Still waiting IC

Keep waiting.

Some questions are so misguided and absurd they don't deserve an answer. This would be one.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sure God will not be upset over some choice words.

You can be sure of the opposite.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)

And I thought "liberals" were "snowflakes" who didn't like "free speech".

You HAVE free speech, Gary. The fact that you could talk like you do, unimpeded, shows you do.

But what nobody gets is consequence-free speech. Being an adult means taking the consequences for what you commit yourself to. This is the ultimate of such cases. So say what you want, but know that you'll take responsibility for it. Nobody else will.

[Atla]

Sometimes it does. But you're skipping the essential point: when any proponent of an objective morality does that, it's IMMORAL. When any subjectivist does it, it's JUST FINE.

Who said that? Because I certainly didn't.

In fact, you're saying that raw power isn't just something subjective morality uses, perhaps after the fact of issuing a moral ruling; you're saying it IS WHAT THE BASIS OF ALL MORALITY REALLY IS.

Those are very different claims. Your observation is that all rules, of any kind, can be, and often are, enforced by way of power. My counter is that objective morality is the only possibility for resisting the belief that "morality" is, itself, noting BUT a product of raw power.

For example, John Locke, the 'father' of all our universal human rights language, said that to suppress the conscience of another by way of power was not merely to do something self-defeating (because conscience is free, even when actions are repressed) but is actually to work against human rights and against the Creator, who made men to have free consciences. So there, objective morality does not resort to raw power, but to intellectual and moral persuasion. And raw power is the enemy of morality, not the substance of morality, as you seem to be saying it is.

Yes, there's another way to go: the moral way. This means to appeal to conscience through intellectual, rational and factual persuasion, leaving the hearer free to do the right or wrong thing. (Still understanding that choices are never consequence-free, of course. Being free to choose doesn't mean all choices get to be painless in consequence.)

No, the basis of morality is the human conscience. But as long as most humans are too unintelligent to be anything other than selfish and shortsighted, the reality of our world will be that might makes right, first and foremost. This goes for both subjective and objective morality, the difference between them is that objective morality is also delusional.

Not at all. It's what they insist is the case. They might use language like, "elements X, Y and Z combined and created an explosion called 'Big Bang'" but it means exactly the same thing -- that what set the universe into existence was not something that had any intention, order or purpose at all, but rather an accidental coming together of non-sentient elements, resulting in an explosion.

That's an "accident," by definition. You might not find the word appealing; but that's because it's also a deceptive explanation, and deceptive explanations often sound hokey when put in literal terms.

Intention and purpose - yes there doesn't seem to be much reason to believe in those. Order - now there could be order beyond our ability to tell, like an infinite multiverse for example.

If something is infinitely improbable, then it looks less like an accident, not more.

If you go to the casino, and on the roulette table, the number 21 turns up twenty one times in a row, what is the more likely explanation:

1. That was an amazing accident.

2. The roulette wheel has been somehow rigged to do that.

And if you think the answer to that one is obvious, consider that the chances this universe happened by accident is literally billions of times more unlikely than that, (https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html) I think you should accept the interpretation of the evidence that is more likely, don't you?

I agree that random chance/accident is probably nonsense. But you see, the worst resolution of the issue is the idea of God, because a God who could create our universe is even far more improbable.

So of course 'neither accident, nor God' is one of the first steps towards real philosophy, but of course most muppets on philosophy forums don't even make it this far.

[Dontaskme]

Still waiting IC

Keep waiting.

Some questions are so misguided and absurd they don't deserve an answer. This would be one.

So what's this now, is this one of you're sly tactical tricks to make ME say something that you can then use against me, providing you with some perfect ammo of an excuse to backpedal you're way out of what you claim you can do, that is, demonstrate the evidence of God's existence.

''Still waiting'' is not a question. The only question I have for you right now is where is the evidence you claim to have that God exists, please show in you're own words, like you said you could to Harbal, if only H was open to it, but since he wasn't, you shy away from the task.

Now you have someone who is open to it, but still you say it wouldn't be worth you're time and effort for such unworthy undeserving plebs like me. Thing is, it does seem as though you prefer to just turn this around any which way you can possibly think of, just to avoid producing you're demo to anyone now it seems.


Why can't you simply show people you're demo that proves with evidence that God exists? Are you scared of what readers will think?

But predictably, as usual IC no show as of yet.

All talk and no action IC

[Immanuel Can]

Sometimes it does. But you're skipping the essential point: when any proponent of an objective morality does that, it's IMMORAL. When any subjectivist does it, it's JUST FINE.

Who said that? Because I certainly didn't.

Subjectivism makes it necessary for us to believe that, whether you say it or not. But you said that morality IS raw power. And that would mean that if you want people to be "moral," then you expect them to resort to nothing more than raw power.

But I'm sure you misspoke on that, so you're free to retract if you want. No hard feelings.

there could be order beyond our ability to tell, like an infinite multiverse for example.

If the variables in the universe are infinite -- which, in an infinite universe, they have to be, by definition of "infinite" -- then any particular outcome remains infinitely improbable, for an infinite duration of time.

Which means the "infinite universes" explanation (in addition to its problem of being unscientific because definitionally unempirical) fails to explain why anything exists.

That is, unless there is some inexplicable "limiting factor" to the number of possible outcomes...which would be... what?

I agree that random chance/accident is probably nonsense.

Well, there are only two options: something can be random, or something can be purposeful /intentional / designed instead. So it's pretty clear that if Atheism of any kind is true, then all explanations that involve Somebody installing or designing some purpose for the universe have to be ruled out from the get-go.

So Atheists have to believe the universe is a product of randomness. If they don't, then they have no option but to return to some "design" explanation, which would implicate God again. And they don't want to do that, obviously.

But you see, the worst resolution of the issue is the idea of God, because a God who could create our universe is even far more improbable.

Au contraire: if I may give you a lead on that, you need to understand the Kalaam Cosmological argument to see why the opposite is true; but I'll have to let you research that yourself, because it's too much to go over here.

Suffice it to say, we know for certain, mathematically and empirically, that there's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. So there has to be an original cause, which must, unavoidably, be uncaused. That's the short version, but it's a very powerful and complex argument, so to understand it and respond to it, you'll need to do your own investigation.

Sorry. Not intending to give you 'homework' here, but there are some answers so profound that nothing less will do them justice. And we are asking, "Where did the universe begin," so we've pretty much committed ourselves to needing a sophisticated answer, haven't we?