What could make morality objective?

[phyllo]

Just a thought. Omniscience and omnipotence have no moral significance or entailment. It doesn't follow that an all-knowing and all-powerful being will or must be all-good. It could just as well be all-bad.

Iambiguous neglected to include 'omnibenevolent' as a required attribute of this god. Including it would result in an optimal objective morality for humans.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did that intentionally.

In which case, the god acts as a governing body which establishes a set of rules and penalties for breaking the rules. Something like an standards organization setting the official rules of basketball or chess or mechanical fasteners, etc.

Words like "all-good" and "all-bad" seem like objective terms.

The claim that an all-knowing being would have all-knowledge of morality assumes there is such a thing as moral knowledge - which begs the question.

The god would have knowledge of consequences and the best goals to pursue. That would be moral knowledge.

Even subjective morality must be based on some sort of knowledge. How else would a subjectivist choose an action?

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought. Omniscience and omnipotence have no moral significance or entailment. It doesn't follow that an all-knowing and all-powerful being will or must be all-good. It could just as well be all-bad.

Iambiguous neglected to include 'omnibenevolent' as a required attribute of this god. Including it would result in an optimal objective morality for humans.

I disagree. Omnibenevolence is as ill-defined - and quickly contradictory - as omnipotence and omniscience. And it doesn't entail the existence of moral facts.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did that intentionally.

It's omission puzzled me. Normally, the three omnis go together - which is why an omni-god evaporates in contradictions.

In which case, the god acts as a governing body which establishes a set of rules and penalties for breaking the rules. Something like an standards organization setting the official rules of basketball or chess or mechanical fasteners, etc.

Words like "all-good" and "all-bad" seem like objective terms.

I used them ironically.

The claim that an all-knowing being would have all-knowledge of morality assumes there is such a thing as moral knowledge - which begs the question.

The god would have knowledge of consequences and the best goals to pursue. That would be moral knowledge.

Not so. There are no factually 'best' goals and consequences. Goal-consistency and consequentialism just delay necessarily subjective moral judgements.

Even subjective morality must be based on some sort of knowledge. How else would a subjectivist choose an action?

Agreed. That's why to reject moral objectivism is not to reject rationality.

[phyllo]

There are no factually 'best' goals and consequences.

You don't know what they are but the omni god would.

Agreed. That's why to reject moral objectivism is not to reject rationality.

That's an admission that there is moral knowledge. Right?

[Peter Holmes]

There are no factually 'best' goals and consequences.

You don't know what they are but the omni god would.

No, they could only be matters of opinion, which are subjective.

Agreed. That's why to reject moral objectivism is not to reject rationality.

That's an admission that there is moral knowledge. Right?

No. Moral beliefs, judgements and opinions can be more or less rational.

[phyllo]

No, they could only be matters of opinion, which are subjective.

Consequences are matters of opinion? How is that possible?

If you know something will happen as a result of event X, then it's not opinion. If it is opinion, then science is all opinion.

No. Moral beliefs, judgements and opinions can be more or less rational.

Rationality is objective. If not, then any opinion would be considered rational, no matter what it is.

So if rationality is objective, then moral beliefs, judgements and opinions are "more or less" objective.

[Peter Holmes]

No, they could only be matters of opinion, which are subjective.

Consequences are matters of opinion? How is that possible?

If you know something will happen as a result of event X, then it's not opinion. If it is opinion, then science is all opinion.

We're talking about what constitute the 'best' consequences - and that's a matter of opinion.

No. Moral beliefs, judgements and opinions can be more or less rational.

Rationality is objective. If not, then any opinion would be considered rational, no matter what it is.

To be rational is to have or seek good, strong reasons for what we do and believe. And with matters of fact, that means reasoning objectively. But there are no moral facts, so we can't reason objectively about them.

So if rationality is objective, then moral beliefs, judgements and opinions are "more or less" objective.

Try this. There are good, strong reasons to be kind and co-operative in our social groups. So belief that it's morally right or good to be kind and co-operative is rational. And it seems obvious that our moral beliefs evolved in practical ways as human communities developed. But that doesn't mean there's a moral fact of the matter. The only fact of the matter is that we've come to think it's right to be kind and co-operative.

[phyllo]

We're talking about what constitute the 'best' consequences - and that's a matter of opinion.

I wasn't actually talking about "best consequences" when I initially posted.

But the omni god would be able to know the best consequences. That's part of omniscience and omnibenevolence.

To be rational is to have or seek good, strong reasons for what we do and believe. And with matters of fact, that means reasoning objectively. But there are no moral facts, so we can't reason objectively about them.

How can you reason subjectively about morality? What are you reasoning about?

Try this. There are good, strong reasons to be kind and co-operative in our social groups. So belief that it's morally right or good to be kind and co-operative is rational. And it seems obvious that our moral beliefs evolved in practical ways as human communities developed. But that doesn't mean there's a moral fact of the matter. The only fact of the matter is that we've come to think it's right to be kind and co-operative.

We have come to think it because it has worked in some sense. This in itself transcends personal opinion.

Even saying "we" suggests something beyond subjectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

We're talking about what constitute the 'best' consequences - and that's a matter of opinion.

I wasn't actually talking about "best consequences" when I initially posted.

But the omni god would be able to know the best consequences. That's part of omniscience and omnibenevolence.

This omni-god chap is still constrained by metaphysical possibility. He cannot know the flavour of Thursdays or the warmth of pi because there are no knowable properties corresponding to those notions. If "bestness" is not a knowable property (because it is a matter of taste or opinion or of current convenience) then being omni-anything does not assist in gaining the knowing of it. An omniscient God would simply know that his views on bestness were his opinions and would know to leave it at that.

To be rational is to have or seek good, strong reasons for what we do and believe. And with matters of fact, that means reasoning objectively. But there are no moral facts, so we can't reason objectively about them.

How can you reason subjectively about morality? What are you reasoning about?

Don't you know how to reason subjectively? Everyone else does. We all know how to decide to carry an umbrella if the weather report suggests rain is onthe way but we want to pop out to the shops and buy a fake moustache. There is nothing objective in wanting to buy a silly costume item, nor is there anything objective about wanting to remain dry while doing so. But it is an act of basic reasoning to choose to bring an umbrella because we desire to remain dry while walking in the rain.

Reasoning about morality can be subjective on the same basis, arguably in fact it is.

Try this. There are good, strong reasons to be kind and co-operative in our social groups. So belief that it's morally right or good to be kind and co-operative is rational. And it seems obvious that our moral beliefs evolved in practical ways as human communities developed. But that doesn't mean there's a moral fact of the matter. The only fact of the matter is that we've come to think it's right to be kind and co-operative.

We have come to think it because it has worked in some sense. This in itself transcends personal opinion.

Even saying "we" suggests something beyond subjectivity.

There is a world of difference between "we", "you and I" and the Universe. An objective moral fact would be one which was true because of properties of the universe, not just that of more than three people.

More than 7 Americans hold that it is better to keep your eggs in the fridge until use. But more than 9 Europeans say there is no good reason to keep eggs in a fridge. If mere shared subjectivity makes for an objective truth then it is true both that eggs ought to be in the fridge and that eggs ought not to be in the fridge. You might spot some sort of get-out cluase to do with objective egg properties in Europe and America being different. That of course is my clumsy trap, I like to signpost them.

[iambiguous]

Just a thought. Omniscience and omnipotence have no moral significance or entailment. It doesn't follow that an all-knowing and all-powerful being will or must be all-good. It could just as well be all-bad.

Sure, this may well be the case. The Christian God might, in fact, actually be a sadistic moral monster.

Instead, all I can do in the absence of an extant God, is to speculate based on what the religionists among us insist is a true description of their own God...given [for some] His moral Commandments and given Judgment Day and given Heaven and Hell.

After all, along with demonstrating the existence of God, there's the part where it is demonstrated in turn that He is "loving, just and merciful".

The claim that an all-knowing being would have all-knowledge of morality assumes there is such a thing as moral knowledge - which begs the question. And anyway, from having all moral knowledge, it wouldn't follow that you'd necessarily choose moral goodness.

Assuming perhaps that mere mortals, having invented philosophy, are somehow a match for an omniscient God in connecting the dots between "I" before and "I" after the grave.

And, one step back - the 'omni' property is incoherent anyway - and the invented omni-god is a walking contradiction. A fitting hero for some moral objectivists.

As a theoretical conjecture, that may well be true in speculating about God and morality in a No God world. But if there is a God, what on Earth could we mere mortals possibly know about Him or Her...logically?

Logic and God? Now that might be a category error.

[phyllo]

This omni-god chap is still constrained by metaphysical possibility. He cannot know the flavour of Thursdays or the warmth of pi because there are no knowable properties corresponding to those notions. If "bestness" is not a knowable property (because it is a matter of taste or opinion or of current convenience) then being omni-anything does not assist in gaining the knowing of it. An omniscient God would simply know that his views on bestness were his opinions and would know to leave it at that.

"Best" is an inflection point.

An omni god would know that.

Don't you know how to reason subjectively? Everyone else does. We all know how to decide to carry an umbrella if the weather report suggests rain is onthe way but we want to pop out to the shops and buy a fake moustache. There is nothing objective in wanting to buy a silly costume item, nor is there anything objective about wanting to remain dry while doing so. But it is an act of basic reasoning to choose to bring an umbrella because we desire to remain dry while walking in the rain.

Reasoning about morality can be subjective on the same basis, arguably in fact it is.

Are you saying that there is no objectivity in those examples?

Surely, there must be some objective facts there and objective reasoning.

You know, using an umbrella to keep dry is good sort of thing.

More than 7 Americans hold that it is better to keep your eggs in the fridge until use. But more than 9 Europeans say there is no good reason to keep eggs in a fridge. If mere shared subjectivity makes for an objective truth then it is true both that eggs ought to be in the fridge and that eggs ought not to be in the fridge. You might spot some sort of get-out cluase to do with objective egg properties in Europe and America being different. That of course is my clumsy trap, I like to signpost them.

I'm pretty sure that Americans keep eggs in the fridge because they wash eggs which removes the protective anti-bacterial coating. Therefore, refrigeration is required to maintain freshness. Europeans don't wash eggs and they will stay fresh without refrigeration.

So, one can say that objective facts about eggs, bacteria, behavior produce a right/wrong evaluation on what is to be done with eggs.

[iambiguous]

Just a thought. Omniscience and omnipotence have no moral significance or entailment. It doesn't follow that an all-knowing and all-powerful being will or must be all-good. It could just as well be all-bad.

Iambiguous neglected to include 'omnibenevolent' as a required attribute of this god. Including it would result in an optimal objective morality for humans.

Yes, indeed, and those like IC insist that...

1] God is loving, just and merciful
2] God works in mysterious ways

That would seem to be how they reconcile this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...with the conviction [embedded in their leap of faith or in their Reasonable Faith videos] that God is omnibenevolent.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did that intentionally.

Well, if there is nothing that God does not know about the existence of existence itself, then there is nothing that He does not know about being benevolent. And I believe the hope among the faithful is that when they die and are Judged worthy enough by God to go up, the Lord will be there to finally explain all that.

Well, if that's part of the Divine Deal anyway.

In which case, the god acts as a governing body which establishes a set of rules and penalties for breaking the rules. Something like an standards organization setting the official rules of basketball or chess or mechanical fasteners, etc.

Right, God's moral Commandments and the official rules of basketball or chess or...mechanical fasteners?

[phyllo]

Well, if there is nothing that God does not know about the existence of existence itself, then there is nothing that He does not know about being benevolent.

There is a difference between knowing what is benevolent and being benevolent.

Right, God's moral Commandments and the official rules of basketball or chess or...mechanical fasteners?

You can't tell when someone is actually saying something that is helpful for your position?

[FlashDangerpants]

This omni-god chap is still constrained by metaphysical possibility. He cannot know the flavour of Thursdays or the warmth of pi because there are no knowable properties corresponding to those notions. If "bestness" is not a knowable property (because it is a matter of taste or opinion or of current convenience) then being omni-anything does not assist in gaining the knowing of it. An omniscient God would simply know that his views on bestness were his opinions and would know to leave it at that.

"Best" is an inflection point.

An omni god would know that.

It's evaluative, that's all there is to the matter. Your best isn't necessarily my best and God's best is nothing but his preference. Talk of inflection points might bamboozle rubes somewhere else, but it's not going to work on a philosophy forum

Don't you know how to reason subjectively? Everyone else does. We all know how to decide to carry an umbrella if the weather report suggests rain is onthe way but we want to pop out to the shops and buy a fake moustache. There is nothing objective in wanting to buy a silly costume item, nor is there anything objective about wanting to remain dry while doing so. But it is an act of basic reasoning to choose to bring an umbrella because we desire to remain dry while walking in the rain.

Reasoning about morality can be subjective on the same basis, arguably in fact it is.

Are you saying that there is no objectivity in those examples?

Surely, there must be some objective facts there and objective reasoning.

You know, using an umbrella to keep dry is good sort of thing.

There's nothing objective about dryness being good.

More than 7 Americans hold that it is better to keep your eggs in the fridge until use. But more than 9 Europeans say there is no good reason to keep eggs in a fridge. If mere shared subjectivity makes for an objective truth then it is true both that eggs ought to be in the fridge and that eggs ought not to be in the fridge. You might spot some sort of get-out cluase to do with objective egg properties in Europe and America being different. That of course is my clumsy trap, I like to signpost them.

I'm pretty sure that Americans keep eggs in the fridge because they wash eggs which removes the protective anti-bacterial coating. Therefore, refrigeration is required to maintain freshness. Europeans don't wash eggs and they will stay fresh without refrigeration.

So, one can say that objective facts about eggs, bacteria, behavior produce a right/wrong evaluation on what is to be done with eggs.

Did you not spot the bit where I declared that was a clumsy trap? Why did you walk into a clumsy trap that I took the extra effort to signpost for you?

Thinness of the egg shell is a porperty that inheres to the shell, it is an actual objective property. Desirability of the egg is a subjective property, it is a part of you, not of the egg. Now you should understand why multiple persons subjectively liking something is not the same as that thing having an inherent property of goodness.

[FlashDangerpants]

You can't tell when someone is actually saying something that is helpful for your position?

I think he actually can't. I tried to help him tighten up his argument myself, and he accused me of objectifying him and then there was something about a "click" that I never got to the bottom of because it seemed too stupid to care about. He's kinda dumb.

[iambiguous]

Well, if there is nothing that God does not know about the existence of existence itself, then there is nothing that He does not know about being benevolent.

There is a difference between knowing what is benevolent and being benevolent.

Okay, but what exactly is the difference between how we mere mortals might understand this down here and how an omniscient God might understand it up there?

Take abortion, for example. Ought benevolence for mere mortals revolve more around the unborn baby or a woman agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy?

And yet every year it is estimated there are 2,000,000 still births and 23,000,000 miscarriages around the globe. Still, this is all-reconciled by many as entirely in sync with a benevolent God. How? By subsuming these deaths and all other "acts of God" in God's mysterious ways.

Right, God's moral Commandments and the official rules of basketball or chess or...mechanical fasteners?

You can't tell when someone is actually saying something that is helpful for your position?

Uh, that'll be the day?