What could make morality objective?

[Eodnhoj7]

I would try to avoid long discussions like the above.

Then brief I shall be.

Regarding the moral optimism you have, I see two elements: moral developmentalism (or moral evolutionism, anyway), and empathy as touchstone. Yet I think we have good reasons to be skeptical of both. If moral evolutionism is an easy thesis, why have the most grotesque, extreme and evil examples of human moral depravity (the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, the Purges, the Cultural Revolution, and so on) taken place in the last century; and why do such things continue? Should they not be being "evolved out" as we "develop"? But they aren't.

Let's just take one example: slavery, which you mention in specific. In three centuries, the 16th to the 19th, there were 12.5 million people transported across the Atlantic, mostly to Brazil, but around 388,000 landed in America. Of course, the trans-Saharan (Arab) slave trade was larger more cruel, more fatal, and of much longer duration than any of that, but we don't have reliable statistics on exactly how big it was: Njoku estimates 15 million. Today, there are in the world today between 26 million (by the very most conservative estimate) and 48 million (if you include all types of slavery, such as child, sex, etc.) people still enslaved, and those are the ones that we know about. That's not progress. So where is this moral evolution, in regard to slavery? Statistically, it's just not happening; rather, the opposite is. We're worse than ever.

Now, I also have to admit that I find your reference to Paul Bloom in support of empathy perplexing. I can only refer you to his recent book, appropriately titled "Against Empathy" as to why I am perplexed. I've communicated with Bloom personally, and I'm pretty sure he's not representing the view you suggest. He thinks empathy is insufficient as a moral driver and is far too easily misdirected. He catalogues the disasters of treating empathy as a touchstone. So even if people are discovering they have a lot of empathy-feelings, that doesn't argue that they are morally improving...just that they're having feelings.

I've also got to admit I'm fairly dubious Kant also would be in favour of the program of ethics you suggest. His interest was in the universally rational, and in obtaining something categorical and imperative, not a "guide"line or a suggestion, and not something people were not rationally obligated to follow -- and his expected applications would surely include the judiciary and politics, not merely the personal realm.. As for his teleology (and his Theism, of which Deism is a subcategory) you can certainly see it in CI #2, the "Humanity" formulation. However, there is no justification in Kant's argument of his claim that humans constitute "ends in themselves," though he insisted it must be believed.

But let all that be as it may. Still, I'd love to take you up on this offer:

Personally, God is an impossibility [proof available]

So I have to ask, what have you got on that?

"You reap as you sow" observing a constant cyclical basis in logic and mathematics is one of many options.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are having a cognitive dissonance and dilemma on this...

Actually, I'm not. Really, you must avoid ad hominems. They're irrelevant. The irony of you imagining you know what's motivating me psychologically is just too much.

I understand the fallacy of ad hominen but there are times the person's state is critical to the discussion. I could have lessen it by saying 'people presenting that sort of argument are caught in a cognitive dissonance, but you will probably insist it is ad hominen.
Unacceptable ad hominen would be something 'you are a confessed criminal, therefore your views are not credible' and the person's argument is rejected outright without any counter at all.
If you think I am caught in a confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance and argued it convincingly I will counter but if true I will accept it. I can readily admit I am struggling with a lack of impulse control on certain very sugary food in a discussion of deiting.

Why a person is so sensitive to the concept of 'crutch' re theism is very telling and some theists [not you] will even kill to avoid hearing that truth. I have even received death threats [in forums] for that. I will get to the details later.

At this stage I am not interested in a discussion whether there is a total elimination of chattel slavery and whatever form of slavery.

I understand why: you're wrong. Slavery is worse than ever, and every statistic shows it is. You didn't know, and you built an argument on the false premise that it was diminishing, and that people are getting better and better.

That's an argument I'd abandon too.

At present I am basing on the extensive reports I have read re Chattel Slavery [note legally recognized trading of owned slaves] but I don't have exact statistics. My assertion [with a reasonable degree of conscience on intellectual integrity] is thus based on a rough estimation but if the stakes are higher I will do a serious research and analysis to justify my point. Given this circumstance why should I abandon it?
I will nevertheless keep a look out for more reliable statistics since you are so insistence and worst you are not relying on sufficient objective evidence.

I have argued we can establish what is absolute good and thus good.

But you have not shown it. To "'argue" entails the provision of reasons to believe a claim is true, not merely the making of a claim. If I'm wrong, give me your "compass" so I can find "good" too. (That seems a reasonable request: and you'd be very unkind not to respond to it, if indeed you possess the logical "compass" we all lack.)
What are your criteria for "good"?

Note I mentioned I have not discussed the details yet.

Here is a clue;
What is 'absolute good' is for example the Ten Commandments dictated by the God of the OT and accepted in the NT.
But the above is grounded to an illusory God and the doctrines of God is immutable.

My approach [major on Kantian] is to use the above [which is reasonably acceptable within current circumstances] plus those from other religions to polish and improve [without the religious baggage] for a grounding of what is ' absolute good.'
It is too complex to discuss in few posts, but KIV on it.

What is 'imperative' to Kant's system is merely a guide.

You'll need to consult that dictionary again. It's quite imperative you do.

Dictionary?? Are you 'gay'? [feeling joyful].
It is imperative you do what the Romans do when in Rome but not imperative when outside of Rome. Get it?
You got to read Kant's 'imperative' in its full context of Kant's philosophy.
I will KIV to get the specific quotes to support my point.

Re genocides, unless you can produce total statistics, it is not likely there will be a repeat of 6 million people will be killed like what Hitler did to the Jews within that span to time. This will not happen again [except the Islam potential of total extermination] because there is an increase in the overall moral compass or Moral Quotient of the average humanity

Well, this statement is about as clear an example of "faith" as one could find! All the historical evidence runs contrary, and no substantial reason exists to believe it.

Let me just give you one example. Over one billion -- a billion -- of our babies have been brutally butchered in utero since 1980. And you say no moral horrors comparable to the Holocaust could ever happen again!

I guess it depends on what you're willing to call a moral horror, doesn't it?

You are conflating again.
The issue of abortion is very contentious but you are so quick to jump to your conclusion without qualifying the other views.
Note the Principle of Charity when there are such grey issues.

Note:

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1]
The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
-wiki

From the above, it is obvious you are trying to be deceptive and rhetorical [and many other times] by bringing in the contentious issue of abortion.

As with slavery we are not relying on precise statistics. Based on what I have read I believe I am right in my assessment [subject to precise statistics]. I will be on the lookout for credible research on such statistics.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)

I think you're definitely onto something. The term you're looking for is "Existential quantification," and I would agree theistic morality has an issue in supplying it. Theists have generally done a good job at showing why objections to God's morality are meaningless, while I think that they have done a rather poor job at demonstrating how god's morality is actually objective in an intrinsic way.

The thing about the sort of 'intrinsic' detonological ethics here, is there actually needs to be a basis which makes things good and evil. On some level, we all just assume the basis could exist based on our own moral intuitions. But those intuitions don't exactly demonstrate a logical mechanism that could actually dictate what's good and what's evil.

In something like 'the law,' we can pretty clearly demonstrate that it exists as a tangible concept, because it's defined, and that definition can be actualized in the form of a punishment for breaking the law; This applies to any set of rules - we can show that they exist by their enforcement. The saying, 'it ain't illegal if you don't get caught' has more truth to it than you think. Similarly, in something like John Stewart Mill's argument for utilitarianism, he lays out a definition for morality, and a way for that definition to be met. You can disagree with his standard, but the real problem is that this isn't the same morality that every one else is talking about; It doesn't actually dictate what is the 'right' and 'wrong' way to live, in the sense that we think about.

In contrast to 'intrinsic' morality - stating what should and shouldn't be done - has a very vague meaning when we think about it logically, and we can't show that 'meaning' to be a thing which could actually exist. As I said, it's just sort of something we 'assume' could exist based on our feelings. And this is where we run into an issue with the concept of 'existential quantification,' because we actually aren't allowed to assume things could exist if they aren't conceivable - unless we can prove it could exist, through another means; For example, we can show how a hall of a hundred thousand mirrors could exist, even though it's arguably beyond our visual comprehension, because it can be shown to exist by extrapolation. Another example would be the fact that we only see in 2-dimensions, but we know a 7-dimensional vector could exist, and we are also allowed to believe that because we can show how it mathematically can. These two things can be shown to exist with disjunctional and mathematical examples, respectively.

I don't believe there are such examples like the above for the 'intrinsic' morality that theists talk about, and the morality we imagine. Theists can devise their own definition of what morality means, then attribute that to god, but as with JSM's 'principle of utility,' at that point we're no longer talking about the same morality. In my opinion, theists who insist that morality can't exist without a god create a larger issue for themselves. They would be better off saying that morality 'doesn't' exist without him, rather than 'can't,' because not only do we need a demonstrable basis that can make an action earn the status of being 'objectively wrong,' you're saying that god is the only one that can supply this basis.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a sidebar on the mistaken view that moral subjectivism entails moral nihilism.

Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong. But if things cannot be morally right or wrong – or if moral rightness and wrongness are not properties that things can have – the claim of moral nihilism is merely trivially true by definition.

The conclusion that moral subjectivism entails moral nihilism depends on the truth of the objectivist claim that moral assertions are factual. In other words, the supposed nightmare of moral nihilism is the dark flip-side of moral objectivism.

When we see that moral objectivism – both secular (such as Aristotelian or Kantian) and theistic – is a mistake, we can see that we have always built and repaired the framework of our moral values on foundations of our own making - because we have no choice.

So we could (finally) move to overcome slavery, the oppression of women and homosexuals, the genital mutilation of children, economic inequality, and so on. And thank goodness for that.

[Immanuel Can]

You are having a cognitive dissonance and dilemma on this...

Actually, I'm not. Really, you must avoid ad hominems. They're irrelevant. The irony of you imagining you know what's motivating me psychologically is just too much.

I understand the fallacy of ad hominen but there are times the person's state is critical to the discussion.

That is true only in cases in which the moral and psychological qualifications of the speaker have been offered as evidence of some kind, or when they are directly relevant to the expertise he or she is proposing to offer. Otherwise, propositions stand or fall as true or false, on their own merits. All else is merely ad hominem. Even an inveterate liar may speak the truth, and a wise man may be mistaken on some point.

Besides, to make a judgment about someone else's psychological state when you have never met them is surely an overreach. You have no real grasp of my motivations at all, in this case. I felt none of the "cognitive dissonance" you imputed to me; but I was bemused by the irrelevance the allegation represented, even were it true.

Why a person is so sensitive to the concept of 'crutch' re theism is very telling

Again, this would be irrelevant. Whether or not someone feels "sensitive" about an insult is not actually relevant. What should probably be more amazing is that though the "crutch" argument is just bad logic, it gets offered so often. Why it continues to escape those who offer it that it is merely ad hominem and (worse still, from an arguing point of view) rationally doubles back on the person who offers it and in the end, does more damage to her position than to her opposition should perhaps be more of a source of wonder than any ticklishness on the part of Theists.

I don't have exact statistics.

This would be a reasonable explanation for why you believed chattel slavery was diminishing.

I will nevertheless keep a look out for more reliable statistics since you are so insistence and worst you are not relying on sufficient objective evidence.

Well, which of the statistics I quoted did you have reason to doubt? I'll be happy to provide sources.

What are your criteria for "good"?

Note I mentioned I have not discussed the details yet.

Here is a clue;
What is 'absolute good' is for example the Ten Commandments dictated by the God of the OT and accepted in the NT.

So you're against adultery and worship of foreign gods, and in favour of sabbatarianism? That would seem surprising, in view of your earlier claims, but I'll take your word for it.

Re genocides, unless you can produce total statistics, it is not likely there will be a repeat of 6 million people will be killed like what Hitler did to the Jews within that span to time. This will not happen again [except the Islam potential of total extermination] because there is an increase in the overall moral compass or Moral Quotient of the average humanity

Well, this statement is about as clear an example of "faith" as one could find! All the historical evidence runs contrary, and no substantial reason exists to believe it.

Let me just give you one example. Over one billion -- a billion -- of our babies have been brutally butchered in utero since 1980. And you say no moral horrors comparable to the Holocaust could ever happen again!

I guess it depends on what you're willing to call a moral horror, doesn't it?

You are conflating again.
The issue of abortion is very contentious but you are so quick to jump to your conclusion without qualifying the other views.
Note the Principle of Charity when there are such grey issues.

Note:

Genocide is... intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.
The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word génos ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -cide ("act of killing").[1]
The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
-wiki

From the above, it is obvious you are trying to be deceptive and rhetorical [and many other times] by bringing in the contentious issue of abortion.

If you read carefully, you'd see that I did not offer abortion as a species of genocide. So this is a straw-man response, I'm afraid. I offered it as an example of moral horrors, in response to your stated belief that homicides on the scale of the Holocaust are no longer possible. Clearly they are: it's just that in the abortion case, they are defined away.

But those who define abortion away like that turn a blind eye to the extinguishing of a billion lives. That's not moral progress. That's a moral horror.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually, I'm not. Really, you must avoid ad hominems. They're irrelevant. The irony of you imagining you know what's motivating me psychologically is just too much.

I understand the fallacy of ad hominen but there are times the person's state is critical to the discussion.

That is true only in cases in which the moral and psychological qualifications of the speaker have been offered as evidence of some kind, or when they are directly relevant to the expertise he or she is proposing to offer. Otherwise, propositions stand or fall as true or false, on their own merits. All else is merely ad hominem. Even an inveterate liar may speak the truth, and a wise man may be mistaken on some point.

I am very careful to avoid derogatory ad hominen and qualifying a person's state of mind from the posts the person is posting.

Besides, to make a judgment about someone else's psychological state when you have never met them is surely an overreach. You have no real grasp of my motivations at all, in this case. I felt none of the "cognitive dissonance" you imputed to me; but I was bemused by the irrelevance the allegation represented, even were it true.

Note this example of 'cognitive dissonance' and the mind response to it.
I presume you could recognize the cognitive dissonance and your mind reaction in you while looking at the image below. [if not I can explain].

Why a person is so sensitive to the concept of 'crutch' re theism is very telling

Again, this would be irrelevant. Whether or not someone feels "sensitive" about an insult is not actually relevant. What should probably be more amazing is that though the "crutch" argument is just bad logic, it gets offered so often. Why it continues to escape those who offer it that it is merely ad hominem and (worse still, from an arguing point of view) rationally doubles back on the person who offers it and in the end, does more damage to her position than to her opposition should perhaps be more of a source of wonder than any ticklishness on the part of Theists.

My intention is not to run a person down but I am more interested in conveying self-knowledge to the person for reflection as in the image above.

I will nevertheless keep a look out for more reliable statistics since you are so insistence and worst you are not relying on sufficient objective evidence.

Well, which of the statistics I quoted did you have reason to doubt? I'll be happy to provide sources.

Do you have statistics on the numbers of legal chattels slavery around the world over the last 200 years. Plus comparison of images [large numbers] like this;

[??]

What are your criteria for "good"?

Note I mentioned I have not discussed the details yet.

Here is a clue;
What is 'absolute good' is for example the Ten Commandments dictated by the God of the OT and accepted in the NT.

So you're against adultery and worship of foreign gods, and in favour of sabbatarianism? That would seem surprising, in view of your earlier claims, but I'll take your word for it.

I don't mean all the commandments, obviously I will avoid the one that refer to God.

Re genocides, unless you can produce total statistics, it is not likely there will be a repeat of 6 million people will be killed like what Hitler did to the Jews within that span to time. This will not happen again [except the Islam potential of total extermination] because there is an increase in the overall moral compass or Moral Quotient of the average humanity

Well, this statement is about as clear an example of "faith" as one could find! All the historical evidence runs contrary, and no substantial reason exists to believe it.

This is not faith as to believe in an assertion of reality.
This is a prediction based on current trend note the exception state above.

If you read carefully, you'd see that I did not offer abortion as a species of genocide. So this is a straw-man response, I'm afraid. I offered it as an example of moral horrors, in response to your stated belief that homicides on the scale of the Holocaust are no longer possible. Clearly they are: it's just that in the abortion case, they are defined away.

But those who define abortion away like that turn a blind eye to the extinguishing of a billion lives. That's not moral progress. That's a moral horror.

Btw, the absolute moral maxim I would introduce from the Kantian perspective would be;

"Abortion is not Permitted - no ifs nor buts"

but this is only a moral absolute as a guide only.

Obviously in practice at present an into the near future, there will be unwanted pregnancies.
The moral absolutes will guide [not enforce, penalize nor use fear of God] humanity to find solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies to continually decreasing optimal levels.
On this issue humanity must deal with the issue of 'lust' and find way to modulate 'lust' within humans. I am optimistic this is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is the image I mentioned re cognitive dissonance above;

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re slaves'



I could not post more because they exceeded the forum allowable pixel limits.

[Immanuel Can]

I am very careful to avoid derogatory ad hominen and qualifying a person's state of mind from the posts the person is posting.

That's good policy. But you won't find that I gave you any reason to suppose me to be operating in a state of cognitive dissonance. So in that interpretation, you perhaps transgressed your own best rule.

Besides, to make a judgment about someone else's psychological state when you have never met them is surely an overreach. You have no real grasp of my motivations at all, in this case. I felt none of the "cognitive dissonance" you imputed to me; but I was bemused by the irrelevance the allegation represented, even were it true.

Note this example of 'cognitive dissonance' and the mind response to it.
I presume you could recognize the cognitive dissonance and your mind reaction in you while looking at the image below. [if not I can explain].

I'm afraid you'll need to. Its import is not obvious to me.

Do you have statistics on the numbers of legal chattels slavery around the world over the last 200 years. Plus comparison of images [large numbers]

Well, let's start here...we can go as far as you like.
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018 ... -findings/

I don't mean all the commandments, obviously I will avoid the one that refer to God.

What specific criterion do you employ to justify eliminating some of the Ten Commandments and retaining others? Is it just whether or not they happen to refer specifically to God, or do you have something ethically substantive to help you make that judgment?

Btw, the absolute moral maxim I would introduce from the Kantian perspective would be;

"Abortion is not Permitted - no ifs nor buts"

but this is only a moral absolute as a guide only.

Then what information is added by the phrase, "no ifs or buts"? A "guide" allows all kinds of "ifs" and "buts."

Obviously in practice at present an into the near future, there will be unwanted pregnancies.

There will also be unwanted relatives, unwanted neighbours, and unwanted countrymen, to say nothing of unwanted foreigners. But we don't think that gives us any kind of justification to pull them into pieces and flush them down a drain.

The truth is that we all know EXACTLY what an abortion is. We just don't want to say that we do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have statistics on the numbers of legal chattels slavery around the world over the last 200 years. Plus comparison of images [large numbers]

Well, let's start here...we can go as far as you like.
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018 ... -findings/

Note my reference is specifically to the moral implication improvement from 'legal chattel slavery' since long ago to 'illegal chattel slavery' in 2018.

The report above relates to modern slavery which is illegal and some of the definition of slavery is taken to the extreme.
I have always stated there will be people who will practice slavery illegally wherever there are loopholes and weakness in implementation.

But while there is the reality of modern slavery there are trends of improvements and note in the report there are only about 10 countries which are weak in their enforcement.

While many positive actions were taken by governments around the world in 2018, those taking the least action to combat modern slavery are:

In the above, there is a table of rating for each country and I bet if we compare the rating of each individual country the trend is positive rather than going backward like those in the weak ones listed above.

[Immanuel Can]

I bet if we compare the rating of each individual country the trend is positive rather than going backward like those in the weak ones listed above.

I see that your belief is what we call "unfalsifiable." You evince a faith in developmental human goodness that is evidently impervious to all empirical disproof. I suppose there is little more to be said about that, save that, for statistical reasons, I lack your fervency of belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I bet if we compare the rating of each individual country the trend is positive rather than going backward like those in the weak ones listed above.

I see that your belief is what we call "unfalsifiable." You evince a faith in developmental human goodness that is evidently impervious to all empirical disproof. I suppose there is little more to be said about that, save that, for statistical reasons, I lack your fervency of belief.

Intuitively from what I have read and know, I assess there is a positive trend.
Note this is only an opinion not yet a substantiated belief or knowledge.
I am sure there are statistic of optimism in the elimination of legal chattel slavery somewhere.
I will keep in view and report when I come across them.
Note I have used legal chattel slavery as one obvious example.

Another example which is not so obvious but has a positive moral trend is the reduction in racism with the introduction of laws on racism which were not present 200 or 500 years ago.

There are many other trends on various aspects of humanity that has shown positivity. It is bit too tedious to compile them.

[Peter Holmes]

Sorry if these have already been mentioned - but two texts have interesting and evidenced (if not flawless) arguments on the question of our moral progress:

'The Better Angels of Our Nature - Why Violence Has Declined', Steven Pinker, 2011

'The Moral Arc - How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth, Justice and Freedom', Michael Shermer, 2015

[Immanuel Can]

Note I have used legal chattel slavery as one obvious example.

And while this has been statistically debunked, you've clung to it with ardent fervour.

That's why it's unfalsifiable. No empirical proof is enough for you on that point, it seems. Your belief that the human race is morally evolving seems too precious to you to admit of any gainsaying, no matter how much evidence is available.

But I can venture a guess as to why. My guess is this: that without it, you're in deep ethical trouble. We both know there is a thing called evil at work in this world. (Even you have agreed that chattel slavery of the past is one evidence of it). And if It's not solving itself, you've got to do some serious ethical explaining. However, if it's just disappearing on its own, perhaps the task of explaining can just be put off long enough to avoid having to do it at all.

However, if that's it, then it's not good logic. It's just blind optimism. And blind optimism is both permissive of evil and dangerous: it not only allows the continuation of the modern slave trades unimpeded, but it's also of the kind that gets naive Americans killed on their bicycles.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)

Sure it's simple. All one has to do is to ask oneself if they would like to be another's slave. I'm sure that most of the time the answer would be no. Thus the majority speaks of morality. We all fear death equally, assuming we aren't born mentally challenged. And so contained within the quest for survival, lies morality. And to be even clearer, so as to eliminate those that are somewhat challenged, the majority tends to speak the truth of morality. But then we can't forget knowledge as being a major contributor.