What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

Yes, the above is optimal for the present condition with 'realism' but like I said, [..I conceded Christianity is the most optimal moral model for the present majority in their current psychological state].
but it will not be optimal for the future, e.g. with the threat of easily available and cheap WMDs.

If everyone were to cling to such an illusion, it will only condone the existence of God [actually illusory] as real and there is no fixed goal post for morality to be guided upon.
As such, there is a potential for the extermination of the human species where SOME [merely] Islamists decide to blast WMDs from a rogue nation [a future state like ISIS]. They have no qualms because they are assured of paradise [with virgins] regardless of what happen to them and others on Earth.

Besides the above, there is a need to expedite the natural morality potential so that human can work together [setting aside personal interests] to resolve global issues like climate change, or the threat of a rogue asteroid that appear suddenly from nowhere and heading Earth.

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

Wrong as usual. Not positing a real external world is a highly unnatural, dysfunctional, confused way of thinking, which has a much higher chance of leading to all sorts of mental problems, even hallucinations. With no anchor in the "real world", it will also become much harder to get out of these mental problems.

So if people adopt your ideas, "God experiences" etc. will become more common, you'll also hear from Allah more often etc. The world will become a more unstable place.

Strawmaning again!

Despite my quoting what is 'realism' in general and Philosophical Realism, you still don't get it.

Note again,

Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder,
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The main elements of "realism" is existence and independence of the mind and every human conditions.

As such, realists are prone to hallucinations and illusion because they supposedly exist independent of the mind.

OTOH, the non-realist [Kantian] believe the mind is entangled with reality thus hallucinations and illusions are entangled with the mind not independent of the mind.

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

There you go, talking with ignorance.

[Atla]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

I stated theists, normally referring to those who claim a personal God like those of Abrahamic religions and others of the likes and they represent the majority.

I am aware know pantheists, panentheists and the like do not take God as independent entities.

Who cares if you are bored, I choose to response to whatever for my personal interest as a refresher of my own knowledge.

[Sculptor]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

I stated theists, normally referring to those who claim a personal God like those of Abrahamic religions and others of the likes and they represent the majority.

I am aware know pantheists, panentheists and the like do not take God as independent entities.

Who cares if you are bored, I choose to response to whatever for my personal interest as a refresher of my own knowledge.

None of this speaks to the Thread topic.
The very fact that there are different types of theist, deists, atheists, agnostics, etc suggests the subjective nature of morality.

What could make it objective? This implies it is not and that morals would need something to be objective.
In normal parlance objective criteria and not absolute nor universal but arrived at by the agreement of the entire language community of the society formulating them.

So far this has never effectively been achieved.

[Iwannaplato]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

I stated theists, normally referring to those who claim a personal God like those of Abrahamic religions and others of the likes and they represent the majority.

I am aware know pantheists, panentheists and the like do not take God as independent entities.

Who cares if you are bored, I choose to response to whatever for my personal interest as a refresher of my own knowledge.

Yes, VA stated theists. Atla points out that many theists believe they have direct connections to God and his wording is mostly NOT AT ALL referring to pantheists and panentheists who are unlikely to say they are connected to God but rather are a part of God. Millions of Hindus would not see God as separate or gods as separate. Millions of christians experience the presence of God or consider the mass a literal connection between them and God, large numbers of others speak of feeling the Spirit, and so on. And yes, we can tack on pantheists, various pagans and wiccans and other groups that have been on the rise for a while, indigeous groups that do not have some pure separation, Shinto worshipers, and others.

People often confuse what some theologians say with what most theists believe. Further the colonialist and empirical characteristics of Christianity and Islam should not be honored by granting them the status 'theists'. And let's no ignore how many adherents of these religions continue to have pagan beliefs, practices and ceremonies in their synchronistic religions, there versions. And this is not restricted to the jungle, this happens in the cities of the West and with great regularity.

VA wants to have a specific theist so his formulas work and this leads to a focus on the Christian deity of the theologians when generalizing.

Atla's point was correct and dismissed through poor creativity on VA's part.

[Belinda]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

Atla, perhaps you don't quite understand that ontologically independence means, not psychological independence, but independence from all ideas, feelings, and beliefs.Ontological independence of God is mind-independence so that if every living creature vanished from the world, there would still exist order in the world.

[DPMartin]

I don't know. Is it?

I woulda figured a measurement is a process which reduces one's uncertainty about something.

I am not sure what uncertainty has been reduced by x=x. Heck - I don't even know what x=x means!

really?
if you don't get 12 inches=12 inches which is a measurement or the result of a measurement that maybe useless in many cases but still a measurement. we are done here.

This looks like a stupid argument and I can't imagine why you would want to win it. But if you filter Skepdick's posts by the keyword "measurement" and then filter that with "information" you will get plenty of stuff showing him to clearly agree with what you are writing here. It should get you all of his '1 bit of information = measurement' nonsense.

that's the trouble here in la la land philosophy, no respect for the truth, only the ability to argue.

[Atla]

Theists believe their God is independent of the human mind and person.

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

Atla, perhaps you don't quite understand that ontologically independence means, not psychological independence, but independence from all ideas, feelings, and beliefs.Ontological independence of God is mind-independence so that if every living creature vanished from the world, there would still exist order in the world.

I think you had one too many

[Atla]

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

I stated theists, normally referring to those who claim a personal God like those of Abrahamic religions and others of the likes and they represent the majority.

I am aware know pantheists, panentheists and the like do not take God as independent entities.

Who cares if you are bored, I choose to response to whatever for my personal interest as a refresher of my own knowledge.

Yes, VA stated theists. Atla points out that many theists believe they have direct connections to God and his wording is mostly NOT AT ALL referring to pantheists and panentheists who are unlikely to say they are connected to God but rather are a part of God. Millions of Hindus would not see God as separate or gods as separate. Millions of christians experience the presence of God or consider the mass a literal connection between them and God, large numbers of others speak of feeling the Spirit, and so on. And yes, we can tack on pantheists, various pagans and wiccans and other groups that have been on the rise for a while, indigeous groups that do not have some pure separation, Shinto worshipers, and others.

People often confuse what some theologians say with what most theists believe. Further the colonialist and empirical characteristics of Christianity and Islam should not be honored by granting them the status 'theists'. And let's no ignore how many adherents of these religions continue to have pagan beliefs, practices and ceremonies in their synchronistic religions, there versions. And this is not restricted to the jungle, this happens in the cities of the West and with great regularity.

VA wants to have a specific theist so his formulas work and this leads to a focus on the Christian deity of the theologians when generalizing.

Atla's point was correct and dismissed through poor creativity on VA's part.

Exactly

[Skepdick]

really?
if you don't get 12 inches=12 inches which is a measurement or the result of a measurement that maybe useless in many cases but still a measurement. we are done here.

Why are we done here?

You insist that 12 inches=12 inches is a measurement. Why can't you explain to me what is being measured exactly?

Inches measure distance.
What does equality measure?

[Peter Holmes]

Just a follow-up to my post about the absurdity of appealing to a non-classical logic to establish moral objectivity.

Claim: 'The 0-1 polarity is not the same thing as the true/false polarity.

True/false is discrete. Two-valued.
0-1 is continuous. infinitely-valued.'

False. To assert a probability is to calculate the likelihood that something is or was the case. And that is to calculate the likelihood that the factual assertion 'this is/was the case' is true.

So if a non-classical logical rejects classical truth-value, it must also reject the possibility of calculating the possibility that an assertion is true. If there's no 0-1 - no 0%-100% - asserting a percentage between those poles is meaningless.

And, to repeat, if there's no classical truth-value, the claim that a moral assertion can be true or false is void anyway. An assertion is self-defeating if its truth demolishes its basis - its assumptions.

[Skepdick]

Just a follow-up to my post about the absurdity of appealing to a non-classical logic to establish moral objectivity.

Claim: 'The 0-1 polarity is not the same thing as the true/false polarity.

True/false is discrete. Two-valued.
0-1 is continuous. infinitely-valued.'

False. To assert a probability is to calculate the likelihood that something is or was the case. And that is to calculate the likelihood that the factual assertion 'this is/was the case' is true.

So if a non-classical logical rejects classical truth-value, it must also reject the possibility of calculating the possibility that an assertion is true. If there's no 0-1 - no 0%-100% - asserting a percentage between those poles is meaningless.

And, to repeat, if there's no classical truth-value, the claim that a moral assertion can be true or false is void anyway. An assertion is self-defeating if its truth demolishes its basis - its assumptions.

Wordsalad.

This entire comment is an argument from ignorance. Based upon the (flawed) assumption that self-defeat is a coherent notion. It isn't.

This sentence asserts the demolition of itself and its assumptions.

What has been "demolished" exactly? The sentence is still there. I can see it - you can see it. This is clearly a category error! Language is not the sort of thing that can self-defeat. It's not a building - it doesn't need foundations.

It's pretty obvious that you are over-stating the actuality of self-demolition. In fact, it's pertinently obvious that you are confused - you keep misinterpreting self-affirmation for self-defeat.

[Belinda]

Some do, some don't. Many people who have "God experiences" think they are directly connected to God.
If they then discard the external world as their last hope for a reality check, they will remain stuck inside their own minds together with God, making them 10 times crazier.

You are retarded?

I got bored, carry on.

Atla, perhaps you don't quite understand that ontologically independence means, not psychological independence, but independence from all ideas, feelings, and beliefs.Ontological independence of God is mind-independence so that if every living creature vanished from the world, there would still exist order in the world.

I think you had one too many

I haven't explained as well as I might have. 'Objective' morality means to me that if there was no consciousness in the world there would still exist morality.

[Skepdick]

I haven't explained as well as I might have. 'Objective' morality means to me that if there was no consciousness in the world there would still exist morality.

Surely that goes too far in speaking on behalf of everyone else?

Objective morality means that if I was no longer in the world there would still exist morality.

The most I am willing to stick my neck out here is: objective morality means that if any one of us (present in this conversation/dialogue) was no longer in the world there would still exist morality.

[Belinda]

I haven't explained as well as I might have. 'Objective' morality means to me that if there was no consciousness in the world there would still exist morality.

Surely that goes too far in speaking on behalf of everyone else?

Objective morality means that if I was no longer in the world there would still exist morality.

The most I am willing to stick my neck out here is: objective morality means that if any one of us (present in this conversation/dialogue) was no longer in the world there would still exist morality.

Perhaps my claim is too large. Your claim is too small: there would have to be at least two present in the world for there to be morality.