What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

Your reasoning is faulty. A value-judgement is a value-judgement - or do you deny that fact?

It begs the question.

Not so. It's an application of the logical rule of identity, which is a tautology.

Well, it might also correspond to identity, but it's identity circularly stated, obviously. The purpose of the law of identity is to stabilize the relation between a predicate and its definition for logical purposes. But you didn't define; you just restated exactly the same phrase, "value-judgment."

That's why it begs the question, Pete. The right question is, "What IS a value judgment?" As I wrote,

Nobody denies that a value judgment is a value judgment. That's circular. The real question is, "Is that ALL a value-judgment is?" That is, the question is not whether or not somebody is valuing something...the question is whether or not the thing they're valuing is actually valuable.[/quote]

And there's your question-begging problem. You want there to be things that are 'actually valuable', but value can only be a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective. For a thing to be valuable, there must be a valuer.

It's not question-begging at all. I'm a Theist. I don't only believe there is objective value, but also that there is a Valuer whose assessments are absolutely valid.

But I'm not asking you to believe that, at this moment. And I'm not making a case for it. I'm merely pointing out that to speak of objective value, we must speak of whether or not the object in question is absolutely, intrinsically associated with value. I'm not foreclosing on that question: I'm presenting it to you as necessary...and you shouldn't have any problem agreeing, even though you presently hold that neither a Valuer nor an objective value is available.

In other words, to say something like "I value X" is to say very little. It's like saying, "I happen to like vanilla ice cream." Big deal.

On the other hand, to say "I value X, and X is intrinsically the sort of thing worthy of being valued" is to say a whole lot more. It's more like saying, "I value freedom, and you should too."

That's where my point stops for the minute. It's just that something intrinsically valuable would be, in theory, much more important than anything that merely, contingently, happens to be valued by somebody.

If you see that point, then there's not a lot of reason for disagreement with that. In fact, I wouldn't say there's any.

That a value-judgement is a good ot bad one is itself a value-judgement, and therefore subjective.

That's a presumptive objection. It's not certain, and given your OP, ought to be discussed.

Your belief, I know, is that "value-judgment" cannot refer to anything beyond the person making it. But that simply makes it utterly trivial, and forecloses on the OP. The answer would simply be "nothing."

A better answer would be as follows...and it wouldn't even require you to alter your opinion. You could say, "IF there were an objective value intrinsic to an object prior to the incidental fact of some particular human deciding to value it, THEN morality would be objective. You could even go on to add, BUT IF there is no objective value intrinsic to any object (or action, or whatever), then there is NOTHING that can EVER make morality objective."

And that would be the right answer, without you arbitrarily foreclosing on the very question you posed in the OP.

So how about that?

I've never seen a convincing refutation of Euthyphro. Assuming objectivity is independence from opinion, please can you refute it in a nutshell? I'd be very grateful to see how you do it.

Yep.

Stage 1: Go back to the original, and look at how Socrates frames the problem. Here is the actual exerpt:

Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now?

Euth. You are quite right.

Soc. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

Euth. True.

Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?

Euth. So I should suppose.

Soc. Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

In other words, the problem arises because of the Greek belief in multiple gods. What one god likes, the others may not; and what one god likes one minute, he may not like in the next.

Stage 2: As you can see, the problem is posited by Socrates as one of dichotomy. Either gods like things because they are good, or good things are made good by the gods liking them. But the second cannot really be true, if the gods disagree and if they change their minds...so it must be that there is a "good" which precedes all the gods.

So, says the modern skeptic, if objective value exists, it must make belief in gods irrelevant to the question of value. And is that not your present objection, Pete?

Stage 3: However the problem is in the dichotomy. They dichotomy is created by the premise that multiple gods exist, and that they disagree on value judgments; or at least that they can change their minds about whatever it is they happen to value.

The failure here is the failure to consider how monotheism is different from polytheism. In polytheism, no God grounds value. Value precedes the gods. But if there is but one Supreme Being, one God, then by definition, then there is no dichotomy between what is valuable, and what God values. God IS, Himself, the grounds and basis of value.

Stage 4: So Euthyprho's dilemma becomes a false dichotomy, a foolish question, in the order of, "Is this man a bachelor, or is he unmarried?" or "Is this a circle, or is it round?" God both loves things that are good, and the good things are that which is loved by God." There isn't even a conflict in those two claims, because the Supreme Being is by definition, the origin and Value-imparter of all objective value.

Caveat: Now, I know, and I want you to know I'm acknowledging, that you don't believe in God. So to you, this whole thing must seem like a hypothetical discussion. But monotheists do not say multiple gods can exist. And the Euthyprho Dilemma requires that they should. So the Euthyphro Dilemma is an excellent defeater for objective value for polytheists, but absolutely useless in terms of refuting monotheists, because they don't take the assumptions Socrates himself required in order to make the Euthyphro Dilemma appear.

You speak for yourself there, since you use "I." I spoke of the more general intuition we all have about it. I would suggest that the intuition or belief (no, I'm not saying "knowledge") that we all have that slavery is wrong would be based on something. And I would say the secular explanation...that it's just a weird, irrational byproduct of contingent forces...comes across as awfully thin by comparison.

1 Here's a Cambridge definition of intuition: '(knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts'. So here, intuition is a supposed route to knowledge, as I pointed out. And this is back-door moral cognitivism - begging the question again.

I'm sorry, you're incorrect in your assumption of why I chose the word "intuition."

An "intuition" is a (possibly-trivial) feeling of sensing something. As such, the word leaves open the question of whether or not the "intuition" in hand is of something real or something not real. By using that word, I was leaving open your view as well as mine, and NOT prejudicing our language for you or against you. I was being as fair as I could be, not "smuggling in" anything.

I think it's not too much to ask of your position, Pete, that you recognize that people have ideas in their heads about morality. Calling these "intuitions" is a good way of avoiding slanting the discussion. But if you want a different word -- sensations, supposals, assumptions, I don't know what you'd take in place of "intuitions," then that's fine. Let's not say "knowledge" or "conviction," because that perhaps slants the discussion in my favour; but let's equally not say "imaginings," "fancies" or "delusions," because the would slant the discussion unjustly the other way.

What word do you want? I'll take any neutral term you choose. What we both know is that people do have some kind of...whatever...that imparts to them the inclination to think that X is valuable and Y is not. We can leave entirely open whether or not they're right to have this...whatever...but we need some name for it in order to talk about it.

What's your pleasure, for that word?

2 Your account of secular morality is false and tendentious

On what points?

[RCSaunders]

[I've skipped some discussion because it is mostly a rehash of previous discussions.]

It might be that the soldier gives up his life not for a good reason but for a bad one. But it might also be the case that he gives up his life for a very good one.

I remember reading a first-hand account of a survivor of WWI. Apparently, he and his troop were holed up on a hillside, with barbed wire above them. They had what were called "bangor torpedoes," which were tubes of metal filled with explosive. The idea was to push the tube through the barbed wire, detonate the torpedo, and blow the wire apart so the men could get through.

Anyway, they were lying on the hillside, and one of them crawled up and inserted some bangor torpedoes on the top of the hill, then rolled back down to the troop that was ducking for the explosion. But suddenly, one of the torpedoes dislodged, and came sliding down the hill toward the horrified troop on the hillside.

With but seconds to go, one of the men didn't hesitate. He jumped up the hill, seized the torpedo, ran it back up the hill, then fell on it to hold it from coming back down. Of course, he was killed in the ensuing concussion, but his friends were spared.

This kind of altruism is impossible, according to the cynical egoist. Nobody does anything unless it benefits him. So now, the cynic has to invent an elaborate explanation as to how being gutted by a bangor torpedo was in the interest of the brave young soldier.

Only an altruist could believe that story illustrates anything other than the evil of self-sacrifice and self-immolation. The story is nothing but rank sentimentalism. The soldier that blew himself up just committed suicide. There can be no good reason for such a self-destructive act. I hope his wife and fatherless children appreciated his altruistic act which sacrificed them as well. On second thought, if he was that stupid, they were probably better off without him. What was he doing fighting in a war in the first place? If he volunteered, it explains everything. If he was drafted, the act might have been one of despair (they were all going to die anyway). If this story is meant to show the "virtue" of altruism, it certainly does.

There is something despicable about celebrating the pointless horrible death of a foolish young man and calling it noble and brave. It is just another way of telling the collectivist lie: "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country," (or buddies, or neighbors, or complete strangers). [from: "Dulce et Decorum est." Wilfred Owen]

[I've skipped some more discussion here because I want to get back to the main question of objective values]

Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty.

You misunderstand. "Moral duty" simply means "obligation to act on a moral imperative." ...

Every moral principle has an imperative, a duty associated with it. If, for example, murder is wrong, then it means that we all have a duty not to murder. If theft is wrong, then we have a duty not to steal. So don't tee off on the word "duty." It's automatic, in ethics. It has nothing to do with what you talked about.

That is still wrong. There is no such imposed obligation as duty. There are principles by which the kind of behavior that is right and appropriate for a human being is determined, but no one is obliged to live by those principles (and most don't, and suffer the consequences). The whole point of moral principles is to provide a guide to make right choices in how one lives their life. Obeying laws or, "doing one's duty," evades the necessity of choosing. Almost any evil can be put over by the excuse: "I was just obeying the law and doing my duty."

You may imagine that "a rational human being" has a duty to "live happily and successfully in this world."

There is no obligation to live in any particular way. One must choose to live happily and successfully if they are to be happy and successful, but there is no requirement that they make that choice. Most people do not make that choice. "Life principles," (morality or ethics) are only for those who do make that choice. Those who do not choose to be happy and successful do not need any principles. Suffering and failure are the default consequences of all those who live without principles, or wrong ones, like altruism, hedonism, collectivism, existentialism (à la Kierkegaard), or nihilism.

... "Happiness" is an emotion. No one can have duty to have an emotion.

Believing happiness is some kind of emotional feeling is the shallow view of the hedonist.

Happiness is the total psychological state of the individual that knows he is living a life proper and fitting to a human being, in total agreement with the requirements of his human nature and the nature of reality, that he is living his life to the fullest possible, being and achieving all he possibly can. There is a feeling that results from that consciousness, a feeling of achievement, exultation, integrity, and joy derived from one's own virtue and the knowledge that all one is and all one enjoys is his because he has produced it. With or without the feeling, however, it is that kind of successful life that is happiness and all that makes life worth living.

It is that kind of life the altruist despises, because the happy successful individual does not need or desire anyone else's sacrifices. It is that kind of life the altruist would deprive all men of, if he could, because the altruist needs others that need him, and the successful individual has no need or use for the altruist.

... What is it "rational" to do? We can only know that after we know what a human being is FOR.

NO! We know what is rational for a human being to do by knowing what a human being is.

"For," implies a purpose, or end, or goal, like all values. Only beings that have purposes, ends, and goals have values, and only volitional beings, who must choose their behavior, have values. Human beings are the only volitional beings in this world, and the only one's that anything is, "FOR." Without human beings, there are no, "for"s.

Human beings are not pets, playthings, or toys that exist for the entertainment of some supernatural being. The only purpose human beings have is the use and enjoyment of their own lives. I'm sorry, but I believe you are throwing away that life in pursuit of a delusional dream.

[Sculptor]

What you should realise here is that the phrase "quantize ourselves" is meaningless BS

Yes, I should. It's just interesting what people can actually believe.

Indeed. This is quite odd since usually Skepdick is usually skeptical.

Here he seems to be trying to peddle bollocks

[RCSaunders]

My point is, the question of god is a non-starter.

Then it's a silly point. Nobody believes it but, apparently, you. 92% of the world thinks it's probable God exists. 96% thinks it's at least plausible. 99% thinks it's an issue to be discussed, because outright Atheists obviously think that, as they think it's meaningful to declare their position on it.

So you're all alone.

What an odd argument. If Veritas is really alone in his view, on that basis alone, he is very likely to be right, since most of what most people in this world believe is untrue, and every new right idea in history was, in the beginning held by one single individual. If someone knows something, they know it, even if they are the only one in the whole world who knows it. [There are an endless number things that only one individual in the world knows.]

Just because the world is full of ignorant and gullible people, and 92% of them think God exits, and 96% think it's possible, and 99% think it's worth discussing does not mean it is. It only means that 92% are superstitious, and 96% believe whatever they are taught, and 99% have never had an original rational thought in their lives.

Why in the world would a theist who believes most of the world's population is hopelessly deceived, living in defiance of the truth, and doomed to eternal damnation base an argument on what those with such corrupted minds believe?

[Lacewing]

My point is, the question of god is a non-starter.

Then t's a silly point. Nobody believes it but, apparently, you. 92% of the world thinks it's probable God exists. 96% thinks it's at least plausible. 99% thinks it's an issue to be discussed, because outright Atheists obviously think that, as they think it's meaningful to declare their position on it.

Do you seriously not know why non-theists would want to declare their position on theism, or do you have an uncontrollable urge to always misrepresent that which you do not identify with?

You just indicated that a large percentage of the world is based on theism, right? (MANY varied ideas/forms of it, btw.) People WHO DO NOT HOLD such beliefs are IMMERSED in an environment of superstition and fantasy. It's printed on money. It drives political systems. It is used as an excuse to condemn and kill. Might THOSE be examples of why non-theists have something to say about it? It's not that they find it "meaningful" to declare their position, it's that they resist a form of mass insanity.

Would you not do the same if you found yourself surrounded by a disease of bizarre stories and beliefs that you saw as completely fabricated? Would you not speak up as a non-believer of madness? Would your "speaking up" mean that the madness had any "credibility" to be "denied"? Or would it mean that you were able to think and operate independently and in spite of such madness?

One man's religion/beliefs may be madness to another man. Surely you can agree with that. To suggest that all are ruled by that madness whether they agree with it or not, are the words of the madman immersed in his madness. What's fascinating to discuss is why he would project so much onto others. What is the payoff for him? What does he seek/need? How can he convince himself as he does? Do you have any ideas? Imagine it being someone other than yourself if you're resistant to considering/speaking such answers.

[Immanuel Can]

It might be that the soldier gives up his life not for a good reason but for a bad one. But it might also be the case that he gives up his life for a very good one.

I remember reading a first-hand account of a survivor of WWI. Apparently, he and his troop were holed up on a hillside, with barbed wire above them. They had what were called "bangor torpedoes," which were tubes of metal filled with explosive. The idea was to push the tube through the barbed wire, detonate the torpedo, and blow the wire apart so the men could get through.

Anyway, they were lying on the hillside, and one of them crawled up and inserted some bangor torpedoes on the top of the hill, then rolled back down to the troop that was ducking for the explosion. But suddenly, one of the torpedoes dislodged, and came sliding down the hill toward the horrified troop on the hillside.

With but seconds to go, one of the men didn't hesitate. He jumped up the hill, seized the torpedo, ran it back up the hill, then fell on it to hold it from coming back down. Of course, he was killed in the ensuing concussion, but his friends were spared.

This kind of altruism is impossible, according to the cynical egoist. Nobody does anything unless it benefits him. So now, the cynic has to invent an elaborate explanation as to how being gutted by a bangor torpedo was in the interest of the brave young soldier.

Only an altruist could believe that story illustrates anything other than the evil of self-sacrifice and self-immolation.

I don't think so, RC.

In the first place, he had no sufficient time for calculation. Moreover, there's no way a person is going to "get something" out of having his guts torn out by a bangor torpedo.

But more than that, there was also good reason in what he did. For had he not, not only he but all his colleagues would have perished in the explosion. His action was quick-thinking, unselfish, and the most rational thing he could have done, actually. So I would say it was a thoroughly noble action.

The story is nothing but rank sentimentalism.

It can't be. It's a true story.

So if the truth is "sentimental," then I guess, so be it.

But I think your reaction also points to something I said earlier: that for the cynic who denies the possibility of genuine altruism, there is literally no argument one can make that will falsify his belief in egoism. It's a truly incorrigible hypothesis, and as such, incapable of verification as it is of falsification.

Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty.

You misunderstand. "Moral duty" simply means "obligation to act on a moral imperative." ...

Every moral principle has an imperative, a duty associated with it. If, for example, murder is wrong, then it means that we all have a duty not to murder. If theft is wrong, then we have a duty not to steal. So don't tee off on the word "duty." It's automatic, in ethics. It has nothing to do with what you talked about.

That is still wrong. There is no such imposed obligation as duty.

Sorry, RC. You're still misunderstanding. I think you're reacting to a colloquial understanding of the word "duty," and not realizing I'm using the philosophical term precisely there.

Maybe we can talk about "moral obligation" instead. Every ethical imperative implies (rightly or wrongly) that the recipient is to consider himself morally obligated to do the good, not the bad. That's maybe the simplest way of putting it. We can argue over whether the moral obligation in each case is fair, but we can't really argue that it is not implied.

So, for example, "Murder is wrong," is a statement that implies, "You should not murder," or "You have a moral obligation not to instigate or participate in a murder."

That's all I was saying.

One must choose to live happily and successfully if they are to be happy and successful...

Of course. But what is "happy," and what is "successful"? Those questions are not explained in that claim. "Happiness" as I said, is a mere emotion, and as such, is dependent on fortune -- literally, on "hap." And "success" is always "success IN." One can be a "successful" doctor, or a "successful" torturer.

The word "success" doesn't tell us anything about which it is, or that "success" is even a good thing.

Believing happiness is some kind of emotional feeling is the shallow view of the hedonist.

I agree. But it is not only capable of being misunderstood to be the kind of "dependent emotion" I was just talking about, but the use of the word so generally IS that, that there's almost no chance that if you use it you will be understood aright at all.

That's why I'm glad you filled out your definition as follows:

Happiness is the total psychological state of the individual that knows he is living a life proper and fitting to a human being, in total agreement with the requirements of his human nature and the nature of reality, that he is living his life to the fullest possible, being and achieving all he possibly can. There is a feeling that results from that consciousness, a feeling of achievement, exultation, integrity, and joy derived from one's own virtue and the knowledge that all one is and all one enjoys is his because he has produced it. With or without the feeling, however, it is that kind of successful life that is happiness and all that makes life worth living.

This is not "happiness," per se, but rather what Aristotle and Solon called "eudaemonia," or "blessedness," literally "possessed of a (good) spirit," and therefore, "approved by the Gods," as Solon says. Emotionally, this may not issue in what is called conventional "happiness" at all; but it is associated with what you say -- that the life in question has been worthy, in that it has fulfilled the rightful purpose of the life in question.

However, to have this eudaemonia, this "happiness" you describe, one would have to know a whole lot of things you haven't established yet. One would have to know what a "good" life was FOR...what it's telos or ultimate purpose was. Otherwise, there's no way you could speak of a life "proper and fitting" to anything, or "requirements of human nature," or "nature of reality," or "the fullest possible," or "all he possibly can." Unless you already know what these things are in specific, there's no way you can call a person's life "virtuous" or "worthy." For you would not know what these expressions mean.

Do you know what they mean? What is the full potential of a human life? What is proper and fitting? What suits the 'nature' of man or the possibilities of 'nature' itself? Do you know what makes a life "successful"?

I haven't seen you yet define these things. But I'd like to request you to do so now, so we could know what you mean and not misunderstand your intention.

So could you explain to me what a "happy and successful" life would look like, in very concrete terms? Could you maybe tell me somebody who has lived the kind of life you are advocating we should live...like Socrates, or Ghandi, or Bill Gates, or whomever?

... What is it "rational" to do? We can only know that after we know what a human being is FOR.

NO! We know what is rational for a human being to do by knowing what a human being is.

Okay, put it your way.

What IS a human being?

I can recognize one in the street, but you say not all are "happy and successful," and that a good one ought to be -- so not everybody I recognize as a human being qualifies, obviously. The biological definition can't be what you have in mind, then. What is a fully-actualized human being in the sense you want us to be more individualistic to become?

The only purpose human beings have is the use and enjoyment of their own lives.

Well, Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed his...until the end. So did Jimmy Saville...all the way, apparently. Ghengis Khan probably enjoyed his; he certainly got a lot of his desires. And plenty of others whom the rest of us would surely want to call "immoral" and "bad." Moreover, we would not merely want to say they wasted their lives, but much worse, used them in active creation of evil and victimizing of other human beings.

If the only purpose human beings have is "enjoyment" of their own lives, then would it not obviously be the case that every psychopathic pedophile predator would be living what you would have to call "a good life."

After all, he would certainly be untroubled by the twinges of altruism...

[Immanuel Can]

It might be that the soldier gives up his life not for a good reason but for a bad one. But it might also be the case that he gives up his life for a very good one.

I remember reading a first-hand account of a survivor of WWI. Apparently, he and his troop were holed up on a hillside, with barbed wire above them. They had what were called "bangor torpedoes," which were tubes of metal filled with explosive. The idea was to push the tube through the barbed wire, detonate the torpedo, and blow the wire apart so the men could get through.

Anyway, they were lying on the hillside, and one of them crawled up and inserted some bangor torpedoes on the top of the hill, then rolled back down to the troop that was ducking for the explosion. But suddenly, one of the torpedoes dislodged, and came sliding down the hill toward the horrified troop on the hillside.

With but seconds to go, one of the men didn't hesitate. He jumped up the hill, seized the torpedo, ran it back up the hill, then fell on it to hold it from coming back down. Of course, he was killed in the ensuing concussion, but his friends were spared.

This kind of altruism is impossible, according to the cynical egoist. Nobody does anything unless it benefits him. So now, the cynic has to invent an elaborate explanation as to how being gutted by a bangor torpedo was in the interest of the brave young soldier.

Only an altruist could believe that story illustrates anything other than the evil of self-sacrifice and self-immolation.

I don't think so, RC.

In the first place, he had no sufficient time for calculation. Moreover, I think it's highly implausible to suggest that a person is going to "get something" out of having his guts torn out by a bangor torpedo.

But more than that, there was also good reason in what he did. For had he not, not only he but all his colleagues would have perished in the explosion. His action was quick-thinking, unselfish, and the most rational thing he could have done, actually. So I would say it was a thoroughly noble action.

The story is nothing but rank sentimentalism.

It can't be. It's a true story.

So if the truth is "sentimental," then I guess, so be it.

But I think your reaction also points to something I said earlier: that for the cynic who denies the possibility of genuine altruism, there is literally no argument one can make that will falsify his belief in egoism. It's a truly incorrigible hypothesis, and as such, incapable of verification as it is of falsification.

Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty.

You misunderstand. "Moral duty" simply means "obligation to act on a moral imperative." ...

Every moral principle has an imperative, a duty associated with it. If, for example, murder is wrong, then it means that we all have a duty not to murder. If theft is wrong, then we have a duty not to steal. So don't tee off on the word "duty." It's automatic, in ethics. It has nothing to do with what you talked about.

That is still wrong. There is no such imposed obligation as duty.

Sorry, RC. You're still misunderstanding. I think you're reacting to a colloquial understanding of the word "duty," and not realizing I'm using the philosophical term precisely there.

Maybe we can talk about "moral obligation" instead. Every ethical imperative implies (rightly or wrongly) that the recipient is to consider himself morally obligated to do the good, not the bad. That's maybe the simplest way of putting it. We can argue over whether the moral obligation in each case is fair, but we can't really argue that it is not implied.

So, for example, "Murder is wrong," is a statement that implies, "You should not murder," or "You have a moral obligation not to instigate or participate in a murder."

That's all I was saying.

One must choose to live happily and successfully if they are to be happy and successful...

Of course. But what is "happy," and what is "successful"? Those questions are not explained in that claim. "Happiness" as I said, is a mere emotion, and as such, is dependent on fortune -- literally, on "hap." And "success" is always "success IN." One can be a "successful" doctor, or a "successful" torturer.

The word "success" doesn't tell us anything about which it is, or that "success" is even a good thing.

Believing happiness is some kind of emotional feeling is the shallow view of the hedonist.

I agree. But it is not only capable of being misunderstood to be the kind of "dependent emotion" I was just talking about, but the use of the word so generally IS that, that there's almost no chance that if you use it you will be understood aright at all.

That's why I'm glad you filled out your definition as follows:

Happiness is the total psychological state of the individual that knows he is living a life proper and fitting to a human being, in total agreement with the requirements of his human nature and the nature of reality, that he is living his life to the fullest possible, being and achieving all he possibly can. There is a feeling that results from that consciousness, a feeling of achievement, exultation, integrity, and joy derived from one's own virtue and the knowledge that all one is and all one enjoys is his because he has produced it. With or without the feeling, however, it is that kind of successful life that is happiness and all that makes life worth living.

This is not "happiness," per se, but rather what Aristotle and Solon called "eudaemonia," or "blessedness," literally "possessed of a (good) spirit," and therefore, "approved by the Gods," as Solon says. Emotionally, this may not issue in what is called conventional "happiness" at all; but it is associated with what you say -- that the life in question has been worthy, in that it has fulfilled the rightful purpose of the life in question.

However, to have this eudaemonia, this "happiness" you describe, one would have to know a whole lot of things you haven't established yet. One would have to know what a "good" life was FOR...what it's telos or ultimate purpose was. Otherwise, there's no way you could speak of a life "proper and fitting" to anything, or "requirements of human nature," or "nature of reality," or "the fullest possible," or "all he possibly can." Unless you already know what these things are in specific, there's no way you can call a person's life "virtuous" or "worthy." For you would not know what these expressions mean.

Do you know what they mean? What is the full potential of a human life? What is proper and fitting? What suits the 'nature' of man or the possibilities of 'nature' itself? Do you know what makes a life "successful"?

I haven't seen you yet define these things. But I'd like to request you to do so now, so we could know what you mean and not misunderstand your intention.

So could you explain to me what a "happy and successful" life would look like, in very concrete terms? Could you maybe tell me somebody who has lived the kind of life you are advocating we should live...like Socrates, or Ghandi, or Bill Gates, or whomever?

... What is it "rational" to do? We can only know that after we know what a human being is FOR.

NO! We know what is rational for a human being to do by knowing what a human being is.

Okay, put it your way.

What IS a human being?

I can recognize one in the street, but you say not all are "happy and successful," and that a good one ought to be -- so not everybody I recognize as a human being qualifies, obviously. The biological definition can't be what you have in mind, then. What is a fully-actualized human being in the sense you want us to be more individualistic to become?

The only purpose human beings have is the use and enjoyment of their own lives.

Well, Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed his...until the end. So did Jimmy Saville...all the way, apparently. Ghengis Khan probably enjoyed his; he certainly got a lot of his desires. And plenty of others whom the rest of us would surely want to call "immoral" and "bad." Moreover, we would not merely want to say they wasted their lives, but much worse, used them in active creation of evil and victimizing of other human beings.

If the only purpose human beings have is "enjoyment" of their own lives, then would it not obviously be the case that every psychopathic pedophile predator would be living what you would have to call "a good life."

After all, he would certainly be untroubled by the twinges of altruism...

[Immanuel Can]

My point is, the question of god is a non-starter.

Then t's a silly point. Nobody believes it but, apparently, you. 92% of the world thinks it's probable God exists. 96% thinks it's at least plausible. 99% thinks it's an issue to be discussed, because outright Atheists obviously think that, as they think it's meaningful to declare their position on it.

Do you seriously not know why non-theists...

Heh...look above. You'll look in vain for the term "non-theists".

I'm only talking about Atheists and agnostics. I have no idea whom you are talking about.

Plausibly, only yourself.

You just indicated that a large percentage of the world is based on theism, right?

Again, you didn't read.

92% of the world is comprised of some variation of Theist. 4% of them are agnostics, but therefore are open to the possibility. and 4% is Atheists, who think the issue is so important that they are actually declared for it. (CIA statistics)

It looks very much live everybody takes it for a live issue, not a "non-starter" as my interlocutor insisted.

Even the fact that you are so "het up" about it as you are says it's an issue.

Apparently, only VA thinks it's not even an issue to discuss; and if there's anyone who agrees with her, it's apparently a vanishingly small minority.

[Immanuel Can]

If Veritas is really alone in his view, on that basis alone, he is very likely to be right, since most of what most people in this world believe is untrue, and every new right idea in history was, in the beginning held by one single individual.

That's the funniest rejoinder I've seen in a long while, RC.

It goes, "If the vast majority of people believe something, it's untrue. If only one person believes it, it's right." Awesome. I can't make up a parody that looks any better than that.

Just because the world is full of ignorant and gullible people, and 92% of them think God exits, and 96% think it's possible, and 99% think it's worth discussing does not mean it is.

Of course it doesn't. But it doesn't even remotely suggest it's NOT either. That's what makes your argument so darn funny.

I mean, at least Bandwagon Fallacy, the belief that majorities make right, at least has this going for it: that if many people think something, a lot of people are having the same conclusions. But if only one person in the world believes something, that's either a case of exquisite, exceptional genius, or the best definition of "delusion" you're going to find.

And whether there are more exquisite, exceptional geniuses around, or more deluded people, I'll let you be the judge. You say yourself you think 99% of the people have never had an original idea...so you can figure out which is more probable.

[Lacewing]

Heh...look above. You'll look in vain for the term "non-theists".

I'm only talking about Atheists and agnostics. I have no idea whom you are talking about.

Oh really? You don't know what non-theist means? And you're unable to answer questions without using specific limited language to support your claims? Your claims are pretty dependent and flimsy then, yes?

You just indicated that a large percentage of the world is based on theism, right?

Again, you didn't read.

92% of the world is comprised of some variation of Theist.

Is 92% NOT a large percentage? Or are you again playing anal word games to dance around truth?

It looks very much live everybody takes it for a live issue, not a "non-starter" as my interlocutor insisted.

People are questioning you about your nonsense. The "non-starter" point was a good one. But again, if you must play with words to prop up your fantasy and avoid broader and deeper questioning, you clearly can't function in a broader reality. It has to be your way or no way. And somehow you don't see how completely ignorant and transparent that is.

Even the fact that you are so "het up" about it as you are says it's an issue.

What are you talking about? Evidently you don't realize how laughable your twirling is. Did you think you offered something besides entertainment of the absurd?

[Immanuel Can]

Heh...look above. You'll look in vain for the term "non-theists".

I'm only talking about Atheists and agnostics. I have no idea whom you are talking about.

Oh really? You don't know what non-theist means?

Oh, I know, alright...it means somebody who doesn't want to have to defend their Atheism rationally, but wants to pretend to be rational anyway.

[Lacewing]

Oh really? You don't know what non-theist means?

Oh, I know, alright...it means somebody who doesn't want to have to defend their Atheism rationally, but wants to pretend to be rational anyway.

Ah, more of the stories/projections you can't live without. And we know that's because YOU cannot (using your words) defend theism rationally, but want to pretend to be rational anyway. You nailed it... you just projected it.

Non-theists have nothing to defend. How does a person defend something that isn't there?

So who is irrational and pretending?

[Immanuel Can]

Non-theists have nothing to defend.

You never spoke a truer word. There's nothing rational or defensible about it.

[Lacewing]

Non-theists have nothing to defend.

You never spoke a truer word. There's nothing rational or defensible about it.

Are YOU in the habit of defending what is not there? And you think it would be rational to do so?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is, the question of god is a non-starter.

Then t's a silly point. Nobody believes it but, apparently, you. 92% of the world thinks it's probable God exists. 96% thinks it's at least plausible. 99% thinks it's an issue to be discussed, because outright Atheists obviously think that, as they think it's meaningful to declare their position on it.

So you're all alone.

That is more silly.
Suddenly, you become ignorant of the fallacy of ad populum?

What counts is a valid sound argument to support your claim not relying on ad populum.

I stated "value" cannot be absolutely-objective, but nevertheless can be made 'objective' within a framework and system of knowledge and basis.

That's just a mistake, then.

You don't understand Hume's Guillotine. You think you've solved that one too, I see.

You think I am that ignorant of Hume's Guilotine.
However I believe you are ignorant of this..

Note it was Kant who had resolved Hume's Guillotine and I am expounding it further.

The relationship between Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and David Hume (1711–1776) is a source of longstanding fascination.
Kant credited Hume with waking him from his “dogmatic slumber”, and he describes the Critique of Pure Reason, arguably the most important work of modern philosophy, as the solution to the “Humean problem in its greatest possible amplification” (Prol 4:260–61).
SEP

Note my examples;

OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

QED. You think that you have casually solved a problem that continues to perplex philosophers. Either you're exceptionally clever to a magnificent degree -- so clever, in fact, that even experts cannot follow the intricacies of your reasoning -- or you're making another mistake that they CAN see, and just can't see it yourself.

I would argue for the latter.

I am not exceptionally clever but had rode on the giant shoulders of Kant on this issue.

I have already provided sound arguments within those threads and there are no convincing counters against my claims.

This is exactly what I mean. Everyone but you can see problems you don't acknowledge, apparently.

A "convincing" argument is not tested by whether or not you want to be convinced, or whether you personally can be convinced -- it's tested by whether or not you should be, if you understood the argument.

Whatever valid counter arguments to my claim can be laid bare openly in this forum for all to see and verify.

Btw, I make it a point to maintain a reasonable degree of intellectual integrity. I would not leave any counter claims outstanding in the thread I had raised. That would be chickening out or at least I would have conceded my premises are false and the whole argument not sound.

So far there are no convincing counter arguments to my argument.
If so, where?

This is similar to the reasoned 'perfect circle' which has certain specific measurements.

Did you mean "proportions"? Or perhaps "symmetry"? Maybe "ratios"? Because in terms of things like diameter or perimeter, "the perfect circle" has no specific measurements.

Yes, no specific measurements like the length of a 'mile' or 'kilometer'.
A [not THE ontological] 'perfect circle' has the following properties [elements, proportions and ratios] as defined here;
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle

...the secular as in the UN came up with secular moral laws...

Heh. You don't know any history, obviously.

There's nothing at all "secular" about the UN's "moral laws." They're derived from Locke's Theism. Heck, ironically, even your term "secular" has its origins in religion. Classic.

I see your problem, now. It's that if you personally don't happen to know something, you assume there's nothing to know. You'll find that doesn't actually work in real life.

Your view above is silly.
I am very familiar with the establishment of the UN.
The UN do not ground on "In the name of God ..."

When Communist Russia and Confucius China were the founding and permanent members, how the heck can its foundation be theistic?? Silly!

Note the earlier representatives of the UDHR;

The Commission established a special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, to write the articles of the Declaration. The Committee met in two sessions over the course of two years.

Canadian John Peters Humphrey, Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat, was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on the project and became the Declaration's principal drafter.[16] At the time, Humphrey was newly appointed as Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat.[17]

Other well-known members of the drafting committee included René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, and P. C. Chang of the Republic of China.[18] Humphrey provided the initial draft that became the working text of the Commission.

Hansa Mehta of India suggested to add "all human beings are created equal" instead of "all men are created equal" in the declaration.

Obviously the Christians and theists would have tried to push their theistic bent but P. C. Chang of China countered with the non-theistic Confucius ideals. Surely Russia would not have allowed a theistic dominated UDHR.

P. C. Chang has been described as a renaissance man. He was a playwright, musician, diplomat; a lover of traditional Chinese literature and music and someone who knew both Western and Islamic culture.

His [P. C. Chang] philosophy was strongly based on the teachings of Confucius.

At the first meeting of United Nations Economic and Social Council he quoted Mencius stating that ECOSOC's highest aim should be to "subdue people with goodness."[5]
He also argued that many influential western thinkers on rights were guided by Chinese ideas. "In the 18th century, when progressive ideas with respect to human rights had been first put forward in Europe, translations of Chinese philosophers had been known to, and had inspired, such thinkers as Voltaire, Quesnay and Diderot in their humanistic revolt against feudalism," he told the UN General Assembly in 1948.

Note Mencius was from (372–289 BC or 385–303 or 302 BC).
You want to compare that [BC] to Christianity and Locke, silly.

Therefore the UDHR has a secular based background and not a theistic one.

Go back and revise your UN History.