TRUMP AHEAD?

[Sculptor]

No "moraity" is subjective, actually. And you can test that for yourself. Just go looking for even one Subjectivist moral precept.

Easy.

You say "easy," but I don't see one. If it's "easy," where is it?

My moral landscape cannot be reduced to a few empty platitudes.

But mostly I am good at identifying idiots who want to impose their morals upon others.
Wankers like you for example

[Immanuel Can]

Easy.

You say "easy," but I don't see one. If it's "easy," where is it?

My moral landscape cannot be reduced to a few empty platitudes.

An excuse.

You were only asked for one thing. One. It could not be simpler for you, and still, you cannot do it.

QED.

[seeds]

I know. But what is obvious is that for Subjectivists, the word "morality" cannot possibly have any content. It just means, "whatever I feel." And that is not morally commendable: neither others, nor even you can say that makes you objectively "moral." All it means is that you do whatever you feel. And nobody has written anywhere that's a noble thing to do.

That's the problem with Subjectivism -- its utter moral and conceptual bankruptcy. It isn't informative of anything to anybody. And it lacks all those features we've pointed out as essential to "morality." Subjectivism cannot promise any sense of duty or compulsion, is not at all sacrificial, has no principles, and has no concern for any others. As a conception of morality goes, it's a eunuch.

You are very determined to drive this message home, aren't you?

It is true that Harbal is very much a subjectivist as IC says.

It is obvious that IC's arguments are grounded in Biblical metaphysics.

Therefore, and as it pertains to IC's qualifications to instruct Harbal on the issue of moral subjectivism,...

...doesn't this Biblical verse...

"...And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

...stand in stark contrast to IC's assertions regarding the unreliability of humanity's inherent (subjective) sense of morality?

What I mean is, doesn't that Biblical verse, which proclaims that we humans have become...

"...as one of 'them'..."

...combined with the fact that the Bible also states that humans have been created in God's image,...

...doesn't that at least loosely imply that we have each been "hereditarily" imbued with God's own sense of morality?

In other words, humans inherently (subjectively) "know" right from wrong, because the ability to discern such things has been, again, "hereditarily" baked into the fabric (into the "cosmic DNA") of our eternal souls based on the fact that we and God...

(and the mysterious "us" referenced in the verse)

...are all equal family members of the "same species of being."

However, because human consciousness has been purposely attenuated in order for us to accept the strange conditions of this "dream-like" illusion (the material universe) we are momentarily immersed in,...

...we, in turn, are simply not awake enough to fully understand morality in the same way that God understands morality.

And the ultimate point is that because we are literally forced (by God's own design) to function in the necessary state of "somnambulism" that God herself imposed on us for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the illusion of her cosmic womb,...

...my own (inherited) sense of subjective morality tells me that in the same way that a human mother would never dream of punishing her new-born infant for anything it did while in the momentary darkness of her womb,...

...likewise, God is not going to punish anyone for anything we did while in the momentary darkness of her* womb.

*(Again, God's and our ultimate and eternal forms are genderless.)
_______

[Alexiev]

"Objective" has different definitions, you'll find. It is sometimes a synonym for "impartial," as in definition you clipped. But it also is a synonym, in other contexts, for "real." It's context that makes it clear which is intended, and in regard to morality, it's not "partiality" that is in question, but the "real" and "perspective-independent" existence of morality that's in view.

Very easily, if He told us what morality is. He told us the truth about what morality really, perspective-independently is.

If He told us "perspective independently", then why did Paul write: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments."

Or do you claim that you are privy to God's judgements, however unsearchable they were to Paul?

As a synonym for "real", "objective" takes as its root the word "object". Objects are "real". If an incorporeal God's judgements are "unsearchable", how is it that He spoke to you and told you the truth about morality, independent of any perspective? Is it you and you alone who have such direct access to the truth? And if so, doesn't "objective" generally suggest confirmable by other independent observations?

[Immanuel Can]

If He told us "perspective independently", then why did Paul write: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments."

Well, if you read the context, you'll find out he was not talking about everything a person could ever know, such as about science or about moral knowledge, but about understanding of the nature of God's plan of salvation, particularly the salvation of Israel (Romans 11:28-32).

I think a word is necessary here about context, since this is the second time in two messages you've missed it, the first being regarding the word "objective". I think it will unconfuse the situation, so pardon the didacticism, if you will.

Context is really important in discerning the meaning of a word, because in English, a single word often has more than one definition, and the only way you know what is meant is by reading the sentence(s) surrounding the word. Take the word "bow." Is it a war weapon? Or is it part of a violin? Or is it a thing that goes in a girl's hair? Or is it the front of a ship? Or is it verb meaning, "to stoop at the waist"? The answer depends entirely on context. Otherwise, we'd never know.

My advice: always read the context.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is not an answer.

It really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — something we generally describe as coming from outside or beyond (our world’s limitations) — exists, then the transubstantiation of bread and wine is certainly possible. I admit there is a mystery there. And I admit that the act of performing a rite of transubstantiation is something we moderns cannot conceive of as being “real” nor “possible”.

In some senses I don’t bother with either belief or disbelief, and I understand the rite as a participatory performance the purpose of which is to unite people in a mystical (spiritual) relationship with the Creator. The supreme power. That into which all resolves and from which all has manifested.

So, I am much more interested in the spiritual bonding and I find even the idea of it important and relevant. The more that I understand it, the better I appreciate it.

I have I think an odd sort of faith. Because I have an odd temperament.

Now please, have mercy! Don’t force me to try and explain the parting of the Red Sea! Can you give me till September!? Who knows what might happen …

[Alexis Jacobi]

But so far there's no evidence for any kind of objective morality, as to my knowledge.

The way I conceive of this issue goes like this. I do believe that objective morality is real, and I do believe that it is defined philosophically and also religiously. But what •it• is composed of, the stuff of it, is of a metaphysical and supernatural matter. Is it part-and-parcel of the natural, biological world? No. Clearly not.

It enters our world through that strange process we term •revelation•. But no revelation (I assume) could ever be absolutely pure. What taints it? Man’s very self. Like an imperfect lens there will always be distortions. So, there are higher and there are lower revelations. One must winnow through that issue with care, seriousness and a great deal of dedicated thought.

An “objective morality” cannot ever be written down because it is there in an abstract sort of way. One could refer to Plato’s proofs as a way to understand this. You can do a great deal of intellectual work and construct a complex and complete edifice — I find much sound reasoning in Catholic social doctrine reasoning — but any edifice of ours can only be a reflection if the higher concepts — which are supernatural.

The issue is that though we can (smart, well-prepared and serious men can) sit down and expound the general outlines of moral objectivism, the implementation of any such idea-based system will always prove highly problematic because the world is chaotic and mutable, and man is situated within unstable, shifting structure that makes reasonable implementation difficult.

Additionally, so the Christians say, we exist in a fallen condition. They say Once we existed within Order; now we have fallen into Disorder. And we have the task of ordering it — the world — but with ourselves as the starting point.

Now obviously I presuppose the real existence of a God that can communicate with me. I know, it sounds wacky, and unlikely, but it has been proven to me (to my subjectivity) too many times to doubt. But I also am aware of God’s silence.

So I say that Objective Morality is a necessary thing that we arrive at through philosophical processes and those processes of faithfulness.

I am willing to concede that moral compromises often seem necessary and unavoidable, but the more focused and pointed is the intellect that focuses on the issue, the more necessary and obvious Objective Morals become. In that sense they are necessary and inevitable.

I do not think that I have proved their existence though.

Anyway, what I’ve written is how I conceive of the problem. And I am quite invested in Christian and Catholic categories, which I must state so there is no confusion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Morality doesn’t exist. What does exist is dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest, which has existed since the time of prehistoric humans.

Quite right. The Natural World operates according to natural law.

Man realizes supernatural law and is the vehicle through which it enters our world.

But what is •it•?

Is it substantive?

It is obvious that it is not comparable nor exactly commensurate with natural laws — yet it certainly exists.

But on another level it would seem.

[Gary Childress]

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

I agree. It's very sad.

But if the world is "survival-of-the-fittest," then the one who has the most effective attorney is the "most fit" in the context of court. And the right outcome is happening, because the "most fit" is obtaining the advantage. The "Law of Nature" ("red in tooth and claw," -- Tennyson) is being upheld.

If that's how it is, then your sadness and mine are merely self -erving delusions. No actual "injustice" is happening, not only because the fittest is surviving, but also because there's no such thing as "justice" to be had. So you and I had better just get over it, because the world of survival-of-the-fittest" does not owe us happiness, far less justice and fairness, nor does it care if we do not have it.

The world appears most definitely "survival of the fittest" or at the very least 'flourishing of the fittest'. Is it a just world to a weak person to lose and just to a strong person for winning? Or is it a just world to the strong person and an unjust world to the weak person? If morality is "objective" then shouldn't it be just that the strong thrive and the weak do not. If morality is "subjective" then it depends upon the person in question whether or not justice is served.

It sounds like you believe that morality is 'objective' meaning that justice for one person means justice for all and injustice for one person means injustice for all. Is that how you see morality?

[Alexiev]

Well, if you read the context, you'll find out he was not talking about everything a person could ever know, such as about science or about moral knowledge, but about understanding of the nature of God's plan of salvation, particularly the salvation of Israel (Romans 11:28-32).

I think a word is necessary here about context, since this is the second time in two messages you've missed it, the first being regarding the word "objective". I think it will unconfuse the situation, so pardon the didacticism, if you will.

Context is really important in discerning the meaning of a word, because in English, a single word often has more than one definition, and the only way you know what is meant is by reading the sentence(s) surrounding the word. Take the word "bow." Is it a war weapon? Or is it part of a violin? Or is it a thing that goes in a girl's hair? Or is it the front of a ship? Or is it verb meaning, "to stoop at the waist"? The answer depends entirely on context. Otherwise, we'd never know.

My advice: always read the context.

Are you saying that the Bible is not literally correct? It must be interpreted by looking at context? Isn't that a subjective interpretation? Did Paul mean to say that God's judgements are searchable, and just slipped up by suggesting they are "unsearchable"?

God's ethical rules may be objective from His perspective, but based on the Bible, they are not objective from our perspective. We can only guess at God's judgements. How does that ignore the context? It seems, instead, that you ignore scripture. Aren't we enjoined that "The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility."?

Is it humble to believe that one can objectively know the Will of God?

I don't think so. And neither did Jesus or whoever wrote the Proverb.

[FlashDangerpants]

I genuinely believe that slavery is wrong, but I can't give you a rational explanation for that belief. I can give you a rational explanation as to why I don't want to be enslaved, but I can't give one for why it is wrong for anyone else to be. Now all you have to do is provide the rational explanation.

I think you probably can give a very useful rational explanation for why slavery is wrong, something like it is unfair and unkind and unjustified.

What you can't do is a foundationalist rationalisation, where there is some indubitable bedrock of morality that is sufficient to build an exclusively rational* morality on top of. The sort of thing that leaves no gaps that must be filled in with preferences or choices that can't be derived from the rational bedrock. The sort of thing where all the edges are neat and no thing that is recommended on one basis would conflict with something recommended upon another.

When you describe morality as being quite obviously inherently subjective, you are being open about not expecting to find that sort of reason. This is not the same as saying there is no reason at all, it's just that what brand of reasoning we have is what we are able to make out of the observations that are available to us.

IC dismisses this as delusion because he doesn't have much talent or imagination and he cannot distinguish between the contingent and the random. You are smarter than he is though, and I think you can see the difference there. The fundamental difference is not at all whether there is reason, it is whether there is a final true answer to every dispute.

Every single person who has argued that if morality isn't objective then it is just made up and useless and you would have to give up on it is just fundamentally bad at philosophy. They have no grasp of the material under dispute.



* exclusively rational as opposed to rational + something else. If we have some preferences that just come with being human such as that we favour honesty and we disfavour cruelty, and if we are not able to establish that there is celstial reason why we don't like cruelty, that doesn't stop you from using the tools of rational justifications on top of them. Contradictions are still bad either way. There are better and worse arguments for why wife beating is wrong either way ....

[accelafine]

Funny how Americans always bring up slavery as if that's the only place it has ever existed and as if they wiped it from the earth.
They do realise that slavery is still alive and kicking on many parts of the planet don't they? That there was slavery long before America and that it has never stopped existing? I'm fairly sure it has existed for as long as humans have been around. Black on black. White on white. White on black. Black on white...

[Sculptor]

You say "easy," but I don't see one. If it's "easy," where is it?

My moral landscape cannot be reduced to a few empty platitudes.

An excuse.

You were only asked for one thing. One. It could not be simpler for you, and still, you cannot do it.

QED.

And you have been repeatedly asked for a single objective moral rule. Not and entire system, but one single rules. and you have been weighed and found wanting.
You are a failure, a bigot, and an immoral monster who hates personal freedoms, even your own.

[Sculptor]

That is not an answer.

It really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — ...

And this is the moment you depart from Philosophy and retreat into a fantasy world of your own making.

[attofishpi]

My moral landscape cannot be reduced to a few empty platitudes.

An excuse.

You were only asked for one thing. One. It could not be simpler for you, and still, you cannot do it.

QED.

And you have been repeatedly asked for a single objective moral rule. Not and entire system, but one single rules. and you have been weighed and found wanting.
You are a failure, a bigot, and an immoral monster who hates personal freedoms, even your own.

YOU"RE the most disgusting BIGOT on the forum. A bigot against the freedoms that the British people over centuries created.