TRUMP AHEAD?

[Atla]

I am much more curious about the strange phenomenon of objective moral truth, but nobody seems to have enough confidence in the idea to risk making a fool of himself by trying to explain it, except VA, of course, but the horse has already bolted in his case.

Anything is possible, objective moral truth could also be possible.

For example a universal morality could simply be inherent in the world itself. Inherent in the very fabric of reality.

Or there could be some kind of omnipotent God that knows what is moral and what is immoral. I've seen the supposed counterargument here that this would still just be subjective morality, as it would just be God's opinion. But how do we know that? Opinions are what we little humans have. Maybe an omnipotent God is simply beyond opinions.

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

[commonsense]

Harbal just say: “I give up, you’re right IC”.

You’ll feel better and then there will be a base to build on.

I’ll say it: I give up, IC. You’re right, IC. Except for being wrong about God being the basis of Objective Morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Harbal just say: “I give up, you’re right IC”.

You’ll feel better and then there will be a base to build on.

I’ll say it: I give up, IC. You’re right, IC. Except for being wrong about God being the basis of Objective Morality.

Well, that's an empirical question. If God exists, then as the Supreme Being and Creator of all, then obviously he's the basis of everything that's real. So the only question is the empirical one: does God actually exist.

And that question will not even be touched by somebody just claiming, "Well, I refuse to believe in Him." He'll exist whether you say He does, or not; just as His existence will not depend on my say-so either. It will be, if it is. End of story, really.

That's why Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, so famously said, "The question is not whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you."

[Harbal]

Let's start with something you can be quite sure you and I can agree is morally right, or something we can both agree is morally wrong. I'll totally let you pick it. The field is wide open to you. What will you pick? Charity? Slavery? Racism? Theft? Educating women? Foreign aid? Feeding the hungry? Ending war? Genocide? Rape? I'm pretty sure we can find one of these issues you and I can agree is actually morally right or wrong, can't we?

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

[Harbal]

I am much more curious about the strange phenomenon of objective moral truth, but nobody seems to have enough confidence in the idea to risk making a fool of himself by trying to explain it, except VA, of course, but the horse has already bolted in his case.

Anything is possible, objective moral truth could also be possible.

For example a universal morality could simply be inherent in the world itself. Inherent in the very fabric of reality.

Or there could be some kind of omnipotent God that knows what is moral and what is immoral. I've seen the supposed counterargument here that this would still just be subjective morality, as it would just be God's opinion. But how do we know that? Opinions are what we little humans have. Maybe an omnipotent God is simply beyond opinions.

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

Nor to my knowledge, but I'm willing to listen to any argument with an open mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's start with something you can be quite sure you and I can agree is morally right, or something we can both agree is morally wrong. I'll totally let you pick it. The field is wide open to you. What will you pick? Charity? Slavery? Racism? Theft? Educating women? Foreign aid? Feeding the hungry? Ending war? Genocide? Rape? I'm pretty sure we can find one of these issues you and I can agree is actually morally right or wrong, can't we?

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

[commonsense]

Harbal just say: “I give up, you’re right IC”.

You’ll feel better and then there will be a base to build on.

I’ll say it: I give up, IC. You’re right, IC. Except for being wrong about God being the basis of Objective Morality.

Well, that's an empirical question. If God exists, then as the Supreme Being and Creator of all, then obviously he's the basis of everything that's real. So the only question is the empirical one: does God actually exist.

And that question will not even be touched by somebody just claiming, "Well, I refuse to believe in Him." He'll exist whether you say He does, or not; just as His existence will not depend on my say-so either. It will be, if it is. End of story, really.

That's why Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, so famously said, "The question is not whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you."

The real question is whether God exists. If there’s to be an objective morality that God has dictated, then there must be a God that exists. Certainly it must be ceded that the existence of God is NOT an a priori fact. Accordingly, it is your responsibility to iterate, or reiterate, your argument that God does in fact exist. As I am sure can readily be seen, I have not been convinced of God’s existence by anything written in this thread, however it is possible that an annotated re-telling of previous points may be acceptable in realizing the existence of an otherwise imaginary God.

[commonsense]

Let's start with something you can be quite sure you and I can agree is morally right, or something we can both agree is morally wrong. I'll totally let you pick it. The field is wide open to you. What will you pick? Charity? Slavery? Racism? Theft? Educating women? Foreign aid? Feeding the hungry? Ending war? Genocide? Rape? I'm pretty sure we can find one of these issues you and I can agree is actually morally right or wrong, can't we?

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

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

[Harbal]

Let's start with something you can be quite sure you and I can agree is morally right, or something we can both agree is morally wrong. I'll totally let you pick it. The field is wide open to you. What will you pick? Charity? Slavery? Racism? Theft? Educating women? Foreign aid? Feeding the hungry? Ending war? Genocide? Rape? I'm pretty sure we can find one of these issues you and I can agree is actually morally right or wrong, can't we?

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

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.

[Immanuel Can]

I’ll say it: I give up, IC. You’re right, IC. Except for being wrong about God being the basis of Objective Morality.

Well, that's an empirical question. If God exists, then as the Supreme Being and Creator of all, then obviously he's the basis of everything that's real. So the only question is the empirical one: does God actually exist.

And that question will not even be touched by somebody just claiming, "Well, I refuse to believe in Him." He'll exist whether you say He does, or not; just as His existence will not depend on my say-so either. It will be, if it is. End of story, really.

That's why Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, so famously said, "The question is not whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you."

The real question is whether God exists. If there’s to be an objective morality that God has dictated, then there must be a God that exists. Certainly it must be ceded that the existence of God is NOT an a priori fact.

I think I need to understand your use of "a priori" there. Normally, "a priori" refers to a conclusion based on theoretical deduction and not empirical fact. What was the argument you were aiming to make, there?

Accordingly, it is your responsibility to iterate, or reiterate, your argument that God does in fact exist.

I think there are a variety of reasons to prefer that hypothesis. I've already talked about the mathematical demonstration, and haven't even touched on the empirical proofs here...though I've mentioned many of those elsewhere on this site. What is it you're looking for? What would you accept as evidence of God?

[commonsense]

Let's start with something you can be quite sure you and I can agree is morally right, or something we can both agree is morally wrong. I'll totally let you pick it. The field is wide open to you. What will you pick? Charity? Slavery? Racism? Theft? Educating women? Foreign aid? Feeding the hungry? Ending war? Genocide? Rape? I'm pretty sure we can find one of these issues you and I can agree is actually morally right or wrong, can't we?

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

Breaking a law—a just law—is immoral.

[Immanuel Can]

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

I commend you on your logic...perhaps not so much on the ensuing morality.

You have a good grasp of the logic of people like Nietzsche and Spencer also, in some ways, of Rand, Heidegger, Foucault... and certainly of all the eugenicists, as well. It's simple, and it's winsome: if surival-of-the-fittest is how we got to "progress" to where we are now, then survival-of-the-fittest is the way forward. And man, all being animals, why should we think that any different rule applies? Natural selection. Death to the weak. Triumph to the strong. And long live the master race. The same natural processes that produced modern man would surely be those that would expedite us to postmodern man, and beyond. Anybody thinking otherwise would surely need to prove it to us.

And if the facts are, as you suggest, incompatible with morality, then there are no obligations to anybody to behave morally. Better to behave purely strategically, and thus maximize one's own chances of survival and procreation. Nothing else makes sense. Even the advancement of the human race as a whole (if we care about it; but why should we?) is going to be best and most surely promoted not by some misguided sense of duty or altruism, but by each member acting most in accord with survival-of-the-fittest, or dog-eat-dog, as you put it.

However, that's an "if." If survival-of-the-fittest is NOT how we got here, and we are not "progressing," then there's no particular reason to attach special significance to a rule we only think, if it applies at all, applies to lower animals, not to man.

So here's a cornerstone of morality, from a Christian and Jewish perspective: that man is not just an animal. He and she are unique creations, a separate creation from all the lower animals, and he/she alone is the image-bearer of the Creator, uniquely placed in stewardship trust over the world God has created. As such, as God's steward, he/she is not permitted to behave just any old way he/she wants, but is rather tasked with reflecting the character and nature of God Himself. And that nature is moral.

[Immanuel Can]

Breaking a law—a just law—is immoral.

Why?

[commonsense]

Well, that's an empirical question. If God exists, then as the Supreme Being and Creator of all, then obviously he's the basis of everything that's real. So the only question is the empirical one: does God actually exist.

And that question will not even be touched by somebody just claiming, "Well, I refuse to believe in Him." He'll exist whether you say He does, or not; just as His existence will not depend on my say-so either. It will be, if it is. End of story, really.

That's why Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, so famously said, "The question is not whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you."

The real question is whether God exists. If there’s to be an objective morality that God has dictated, then there must be a God that exists. Certainly it must be ceded that the existence of God is NOT an a priori fact.

I think I need to understand your use of "a priori" there. Normally, "a priori" refers to a conclusion based on theoretical deduction and not empirical fact. What was the argument you were aiming to make, there?

Accordingly, it is your responsibility to iterate, or reiterate, your argument that God does in fact exist.

I think there are a variety of reasons to prefer that hypothesis. I've already talked about the mathematical demonstration, and haven't even touched on the empirical proofs here...though I've mentioned many of those elsewhere on this site. What is it you're looking for? What would you accept as evidence of God?

As an agnostic, I have an open mind on the matter of God’s existence. I am looking for a rational proof and/or empirical evidence that God in fact does exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, explain why slavery is wrong. I only have an emotional, sentimental case to put, but my view is that emotion and sentiment are the essence of morality. You set out the rational case without it just being a matter of practicality, or expediency.

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

I genuinely believe that slavery is wrong, but I can't give you a rational explanation for that belief.

The reason for that is simple. Subjectivism gives you no basis to do so at all. So you're realizing the truth of that.

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.

Then slavery is not wrong, in your world. It's just...unpalatable for the moment, but not wrong in any real or durable way.

Again you arrive at Nihilism. Why don't you live there, if that's what you believe? Wouldn't that be at least consistent?