Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Ultimately, it's you. You have alternatives, and you choose between them.

So is it possible for me to do something other than what God already knows I will do?

No. It's possible for you to do various things God would prefer you didn't, and some He'd rather you do. But he knows what you're going to do, even when you don't yet know that.

If what God knows will happen in the future is bound to happen, no matter what, I really can't see how that is anything other than determinism. And I can't really see how you can avoid coming to the same conclusion.

If perfect insight isn't the ability to know what is inevitable, you will need to explain to me what it actually is. Bear in mind that what is inevitable, could not have been otherwise.

That's why I haven't used your wording. I don't think it's apt. "Inevitable" implies fatalism. It's like your other word, "set." It implies a sort of locked-in fate. But we're not locked in. We truly do make choices, and the choices we want to make, and take the actions we choose. That God knows beforehand what we're going to decide doesn't imply any coercion, constriction or limitation on that.

But if God already knows everything that is going to happen in the future, and there is no possibility of that future being different from what God knows it will be, then that future is inevitable. Avoiding the word doesn't make any difference to the situation.

Well yes, it would feel like the choice was mine, and I would certainly prefer to think that it was.

The evidence for its not really being my choice is that the choice was already known before I made it.

Whether it was known or not will not change that. God doesn't need to limit you to one choice, even when He knows what that choice will turn out to be.

God might not be limiting my choice, but if he knows beforehand what my choice will be, something must be limiting me to only being able to make that choice. Either God doesn't know as much as you think he does, or we live in a deterministic world.

He knows, because He knows every molecule in Harbal's body and in all the universe, and every possibility there is, and simultaneously, exactly how things will, in fact, fall out.

But that describes a deterministic process of cause and effect.

But something must be constraining future decisions in order for them to be known before they are made.

Sure. Your choice constrains them. But God knows your choice. That's one distinct advantage to being transcendent, and above chronological time: one can see the end from the beginning.

If the end can be seen from the beginning, then, presumably, every point in-between can also be seen, yet you say none of it is fixed, or inevitable.

[Will Bouwman]

...what I "know" doesn't "coerce," because it doesn't "make" anything.

That is in part because you are not God. If it is the case that God made the world, then when he was deciding which, of an infinity of possible worlds to create, in full knowledge of everything that would ever happen in all of them, he chose this one. God literally made everything he knew would happen, happen. The world in which you are reading this, is the one he made happen. The world in which you will respond the way you will, is the one he made happen. You are simply acting according to your God's choice. God clearly chose for you to believe in freewill, and you have no choice but to do so, because that would be a different world that God chose not to make.

[promethean75]

Harbal and Bouwman seem able to understand the logical implications of the christian god's omnipotence and omniscience (pertaining to fate, freewill, possible universes, etc). IC, not so much

[promethean75]

See the grand irony with these christians and other monotheists is that what they think explains and describes freewill - its very possiblity - does, in fact, actually prevent it from being possible.

Only in a universe that wasn't designed by an intelligent, causal agent could there maybe be freewill (depends on whatchu mean tho, specifically). Otherwise, a universe will and does follow the rules set for it by that god, and there can be nothing genuinely random, unintended, accidental or without an antecedent cause.

Another reason why freewill can't square with Christianity is becuz while u might claim, like IC, that 'god knows what you'll do but doesn't make u do anything', what made u do what u did, all the causes that contributed to u becoming what u are in that moment of choice, with all your preferences and values and beliefs, were not things that u caused or are responsible for.

Indeed, u have the real choice to jump or not, and god knows what you'll do... but did u have the choice to believe that u shouldn't jump if in fact that's what u end up believing?

The 'choice' may be yours but the reasons are not. In an indirect way, therefore, god does make u do what u did by being the designer and engineer of the causes that contributed to u believing in that final moment that u shouldn't jump.

Think about it. U design a program. Everything follows coded instruction except the players. The randomness and spontaneity in the player's actions is what freewill is.

But here's the thing. everything else in this world does follow code, so whatever the player becomes and is, is a direct product of the determinating features of the program, a generated result like anything else that follows instruction.

So while G may have given u freewill, he has designed all the causes that effect u and therefore vicariously assumes responsibility for whatever u end up choosing to do.

U can't choose what u were not caused to want to choose, and whatever causes u to want to choose what u do, was caused by god. Not u, not some indifferent natural world. No, it was god the grand determiner who made u want every ting u want

[Immanuel Can]

So is it possible for me to do something other than what God already knows I will do?

No. It's possible for you to do various things God would prefer you didn't, and some He'd rather you do. But he knows what you're going to do, even when you don't yet know that.

If what God knows will happen in the future is bound to happen, no matter what, I really can't see how that is anything other than determinism. And I can't really see how you can avoid coming to the same conclusion.

If you think "know" and "make happen" are the same concept, that's just going to be automatic.

Well yes, it would feel like the choice was mine, and I would certainly prefer to think that it was.

The evidence for its not really being my choice is that the choice was already known before I made it.

Whether it was known or not will not change that. God doesn't need to limit you to one choice, even when He knows what that choice will turn out to be.

God might not be limiting my choice, but if he knows beforehand what my choice will be, something must be limiting me to only being able to make that choice.

Not at all. Again, "know" and "make happen" are not the same concept. You know that yourself.

He knows, because He knows every molecule in Harbal's body and in all the universe, and every possibility there is, and simultaneously, exactly how things will, in fact, fall out.

But that describes a deterministic process of cause and effect.

No, it describes what the omniscient perspective of a God who transcends time is able to achieve. It says nothing at all about any constraints on you, if any such there be. And it isn't a cause-effect relation: what God knows doesn't make you do anything.

[Immanuel Can]

...what I "know" doesn't "coerce," because it doesn't "make" anything.

That is in part because you are not God.

Is it your supposition that God's kind of "knowing" is so different from yours that he "knows" things into existence?

If it is the case that God made the world, then when he was deciding which, of an infinity of possible worlds to create, in full knowledge of everything that would ever happen in all of them, he chose this one.

So far, so good. But this universe that God created was created with agents in it, human beings, who are uniquely able to make decisions and choices. He made a universe including volition-having persons, persons whose choices really matter, and who could do both what He would want and also what He would not want them to do.

That's evident from Genesis to Revelation. And it's also empirically observable. In fact, it's what you're attempting to do right now; to influence the choice of people as to what they believe. Even if you consider me a hopeless case, in that regard, your act of attempting-to-persuade is a denial of Determinism.

If things are otherwise, it's up to the Determinist to prove you and I are wrong, and there is no free will. But if he does so by "persuading" us, then he has defeated his own Determinism. All he can safely say is, "Well, IC was fated by prior forces to believe what he believes, and Will was also fated by prior forces to believe what he believes -- reason, evidence, logic and persuasion had absolutely nothing to do with it, in reality. Material forces / a Deterministic 'god' did it. In fact, if one or another side wins the argument, it will not be because he's being more reasonable, logical or evidentiary, which change nothing, nor because Will's or IC's argument is better, but only because these prior forces actually are going to induce IC or Will to change his mind."

That's not what I believe. By evidence of your present actions, it's not what you believe. So it's up to the Determinist to convince us not to trust our own "lyin' eyes."

[Immanuel Can]

Harbal and Bouwman seem able to understand the logical implications of the christian god's omnipotence and omniscience (pertaining to fate, freewill, possible universes, etc). IC, not so much

Quite the contrary.

Determinism is a problem for everybody. There are, after all, two forms of it: Theistic and Atheistic. Atheistic Determinism is a simple deduction from the belief that some mechanical relation explains why things happen. It could be material cause-effect, or quantum mechanics. Either way, the idea of human volition is removed from the universe. Some "force" makes things happen the way they do. It's not personal.

But you and I don't live like that. We don't experience the world that way. Rather, you and I continue to believe and act as if our choices matter. The Theist can speak of a God who is capable of creating free will beings; but of what can the Atheist speak? He has no alternative to believe that things like choices, rationality, persuasion, individual personhood, consciousness, mind, science, logic and so on are products of nothing but material/quantum forces.

So Prom is Prom because material forces or quantum actions made him Prom. And Prom's argument isn't true or right, but rather only compelling to him because material forces or quantum mechanics preset things that way. And Prom isn't even Prom, if by "Prom" we mean anything special relative to the universe; he's just another clump of random molecules governed by material forces or quantum mechanics, dancing to the tune arranged for him by these forces.

If you still think Theism has a problem with Determinism, it's nothing close to the problem Atheism makes for itself.

[Harbal]

No. It's possible for you to do various things God would prefer you didn't, and some He'd rather you do. But he knows what you're going to do, even when you don't yet know that.

If what God knows will happen in the future is bound to happen, no matter what, I really can't see how that is anything other than determinism. And I can't really see how you can avoid coming to the same conclusion.

If you think "know" and "make happen" are the same concept, that's just going to be automatic.

Whether it was known or not will not change that. God doesn't need to limit you to one choice, even when He knows what that choice will turn out to be.

God might not be limiting my choice, but if he knows beforehand what my choice will be, something must be limiting me to only being able to make that choice.

Not at all. Again, "know" and "make happen" are not the same concept. You know that yourself.

I'm not saying that God makes it happen. You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed. So what I am saying is that something, -not necessarily God- must be fixing the future.

He knows, because He knows every molecule in Harbal's body and in all the universe, and every possibility there is, and simultaneously, exactly how things will, in fact, fall out.

But that describes a deterministic process of cause and effect.

No, it describes what the omniscient perspective of a God who transcends time is able to achieve. It says nothing at all about any constraints on you, if any such there be. And it isn't a cause-effect relation: what God knows doesn't make you do anything.

You say God knows the future because he is aware of every molecule in the universe, so it sounds like you are saying he works out what the future will be by making a prediction based on the behaviour of molecules, or probably atoms and stuff. That must mean that God knows exactly how an atom, or particle, will behave in any given situation, and is able to take every particle in the universe into account and thus calculate the exact state of the universe at any given point in the future. If so, that is surely determinism.

I think the only way we can avoid determinism is if God isn't quite as omniscient as we thought. Perhaps the claims of his omniscience have been slightly exaggerated. That is certainly starting to look like a strong possibility.

[Immanuel Can]

You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed.

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

[Lorikeet]

First was the act....not the word.
What man named 'morality' evolved and became innate because of offered an advantage.
Humans encoded these behaviours, ascribing them to a divine source, as they did everything they could not understand.
All social species behave morally.
Mutations emerge to corrupt this inherited behavioural norm.

Moral behaviours evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
No god required.
Natural selection.
Altruism, tolerance, sympathy, love... all behaviours that maintain cooperative unities.

If this is established, we can proceed to the next step and explore human amendments to these moral codes of conduct - calling them ethics to differentiate them from behaviours that were naturally selected.
Ethics are human interventions adjusting naturally evolved behaviours to human objectives.
Ethics are human adjustments of moral behavioural codes, in order to make civilization possible.

Ethics preserve cultural ideals and enhance a social unity's efficiency and effectiveness - enhance their competitiveness relative to other social unities.

They are not conjured up out of nowhere...and imposed upon populations.

Like cultures they represent a specific populations evolution within specific environmental circumstances, over a long period of time.

[Age]

You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed.

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

you read it. you may believe it, but what is written in books is not necessarily true, obviously.

The bible is just another book, obviously.

[Age]

First was the act....not the word.
What man named 'morality' evolved and became innate because of offered an advantage.

What was the 'thing' that, supposedly 'man' named 'morality'? And, how do you know that it was not a 'woman' that named 'that thing' 'morality'?

Humans encoded these behaviours, ascribing them to a divine source, as they did everything they could not understand.

So, because you do not yet understand how the Mind and the brain work, nor how the Universe works, you ascribe these things to a divine source, right?

If no, then why are you different here?

After all you just claimed that 'this' is what you humans do.

All social species behave morally.

So, to you rabbits, sheep, and pigs behave morally, correct?

Did you explain what 'that thing' 'morality' is, exactly, above when I asked you here?

Mutations emerge to corrupt this inherited behavioural norm.

And, to clarify, What is the 'inherited behavioral norm', exactly?

Moral behaviours evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Why would 'moral behavior', itself, have to evolve for, exactly?

What changed, or is changing, in the Universe, Itself, that means 'moral behavior', itself, has to keep changing and evolving?

No god required.

But some say and claim that survival and reproduction only happens and occurs because of God. So, to them, God would be required.

Are you under some sort of illusion or have some sort of belief that there is no God?

Natural selection.
Altruism, tolerance, sympathy, love... all behaviours that maintain cooperative unities.

Okay, if you say so. But, do these things belong in 'morality', itself?

If yes, then are these things, and thus 'morality' itself, objective or subjective, or neither, or both, to you?

If this is established, we can proceed to the next step and explore human amendments to these moral codes of conduct - calling them ethics to differentiate them from behaviours that were naturally selected.

So, to you, the mis/behavior that deviates away from the 'moral behavior', which was naturally selected and which absolutely all species do, you call 'ethics', right?

Also, what, exactly, is the 'this', which you say, ' if 'this' is established, we can then proceed to the 'next step' '?

Ethics are human interventions adjusting naturally evolved behaviours to human objectives.

Will you provide some examples of what are, supposedly, 'naturally evolved behaviors', and what are 'human intervention behaviors', as well as what 'human objectives', exactly, you are talking about and referring to here?

Ethics are human adjustments of moral behavioural codes, in order to make civilization possible.

But would not the so-claimed continual evolution of 'moral behaviors to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies' just be what you previously claimed 'natural selection' anyway?

What is 'civilization', to you, exactly? And, why is human intervention needed for 'civilization', itself? Why can 'natural selection', itself, make 'civilization' possible?

Ethics preserve cultural ideals and enhance a social unity's efficiency and effectiveness - enhance their competitiveness relative to other social unities.

So, to you, 'ethics' causes and creates competitiveness, and thus conflict, in regards to some imagined or seemingly 'other' social group.

Do not you human beings all belong to One group, only?

Also, what could there actually be within that One group that you 'compete' for, or against, exactly?

They are not conjured up out of nowhere...and imposed upon populations.

Is there a human being who thought that your form of 'ethics' was?

Like cultures they represent a specific populations evolution within specific environmental circumstances, over a long period of time.

So, is this any sort of reason to actually keep and have 'ethics', which you purport to go against the 'natural order of behaving' here?

[Atla]

All social species behave morally.

Isn't this stretching it a bit? Let's say ants are a social species, programmed to behave socially which is beneficial for the species. But probably devoid of a moral sense (conscience), a higher cognitive function that makes us experience moral right and wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First was the act....not the word.
What man named 'morality' evolved and became innate because of offered an advantage.
Humans encoded these behaviours, ascribing them to a divine source, as they did everything they could not understand.
All social species behave morally.
Mutations emerge to corrupt this inherited behavioural norm.

Moral behaviours evolved to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
No god required.
Natural selection.
Altruism, tolerance, sympathy, love... all behaviours that maintain cooperative unities.

If this is established, we can proceed to the next step and explore human amendments to these moral codes of conduct - calling them ethics to differentiate them from behaviours that were naturally selected.
Ethics are human interventions adjusting naturally evolved behaviours to human objectives.
Ethics are human adjustments of moral behavioural codes, in order to make civilization possible.

Ethics preserve cultural ideals and enhance a social unity's efficiency and effectiveness - enhance their competitiveness relative to other social unities.

They are not conjured up out of nowhere...and imposed upon populations.

Like cultures they represent a specific populations evolution within specific environmental circumstances, over a long period of time.

Agree with the above but there are more nuances and depths to the above.

When the above moral norms are encoded to facilitate survival of the individual and the species, there must be some sort of neural algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates.
Since the are so evident within humanity, they are obvious pattern which can be inferred inductively to arrive at sound conclusion.
These can be researched and tested scientifically as scientific facts.

Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based [collective] framework and system[FS] is objective, e.g. the science FS which is the gold standard of objectivity.
When those scientific facts which are also moral elements inputted into moral FS, they are objective morally, thus morality is objective.

see this link
How to convert objecive scientific facts to objective moral facts.
viewtopic.php?p=707334#p707334

Your views?

[Will Bouwman]

You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed.

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

That's not the same as transcendence. If your god exists, he clearly is subject to change because there was a time when he hadn't created the world, and an after when he did.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

You really should stop reading that book, it is giving you very silly ideas.