What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:45 pm This kind of nihilism is fact as far as we can tell.
You need to say, "As far as I can tell," or at least, "As far as I and the people I hang around with can tell." But to speak as if one had comprehensive and universal experience is often a perilous exercise, logically. You will find that others think differently than you say; we are not all secret Atheists.
Not just for morality, but for everything else too. That's where we have to reinvent the whole world anyway, including morality, as a quasi-objective something, but it has no genuine foundations anymore.
I understand that exactly. But if true, it turns the OP into nonsense. Because the OP assumes there is something subjective called "morality" that could potentially, if proof is forthcoming, justify the reunderstanding of morality as "objective": it asks, "What could MAKE morality objective?"

Maybe that was an insincere question, on Peter's part. Maybe he meant all along simply to say, "There is no such thing as morality, so there's nothing that even potentially could be made objective," but he wanted us to think he was open to evidence. But I took him as at least a little sincere. I supposed he was open to counter-evidence, and to being convinced if such could be found. But I suspect now his disbelief was always unfalsifiable, because it was presumptive -- that is, it preceded as an inevitable byproduct of having believed, without proof of course, that Atheism is just true. After that, Nihilism was inevitable, just as you say.
That's just how the world is, I was born into it just as much as you were, without being asked whether or not I agree to its terms and conditions. One can learn to deal with it, or seek refuge in delusions.
That's what the late Existentialists thought...you know, Sartre, Camus. It's not what the first Existentialist, Kierkegaard, thought. Kierkegaard agreed we're "thrown into" the world, and come into it without our agreement, just as you say...but he interpreted that not, as Sartre and Camus, that one simply had to "make choices" with no information, but rather that it is a basic fact that reminds us we are contingent beings, not the centre of the universe.

This world existed before you and I arrived. Presumably, it will exist after we are gone. Even Sartre and Camus thought that was true. So we are not self-sufficient beings, not eternal, and not necessary; we are here by the grace of God. And Kierkegaard pointed out that that opened up not only the space for faith but the necessity of faith. Because you and I are awfully small and local; and if we do not invest ourselves in the right way, placing faith in that which is the true Centre of the universe, the true Reason and Cause that we are here, we will not do well. Our lives will not become authentic, and we will not achieve the telos or purpose for which we found ourselves '"thrown into" life.

What you take as a rationale for total Nihilism, Kierkegaard saw as a fundamental necessitation of faith.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:09 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:45 pm This kind of nihilism is fact as far as we can tell.
You need to say, "As far as I can tell," or at least, "As far as I and the people I hang around with can tell." But to speak as if one had comprehensive and universal experience is often a perilous exercise, logically. You will find that others think differently than you say; we are not all secret Atheists.
Not just for morality, but for everything else too. That's where we have to reinvent the whole world anyway, including morality, as a quasi-objective something, but it has no genuine foundations anymore.
I understand that exactly. But if true, it turns the OP into nonsense. Because the OP assumes there is something subjective called "morality" that could potentially, if proof is forthcoming, justify the reunderstanding of morality as "objective": it asks, "What could MAKE morality objective?"

Maybe that was an insincere question, on Peter's part. Maybe he meant all along simply to say, "There is no such thing as morality, so there's nothing that even potentially could be made objective," but he wanted us to think he was open to evidence. But I took him as at least a little sincere. I supposed he was open to counter-evidence, and to being convinced if such could be found. But I suspect now his disbelief was always unfalsifiable, because it was presumptive -- that is, it preceded as an inevitable byproduct of having believed, without proof of course, that Atheism is just true. After that, Nihilism was inevitable, just as you say.
That's just how the world is, I was born into it just as much as you were, without being asked whether or not I agree to its terms and conditions. One can learn to deal with it, or seek refuge in delusions.
That's what the late Existentialists thought...you know, Sartre, Camus. It's not what the first Existentialist, Kierkegaard, thought. Kierkegaard agreed we're "thrown into" the world, and come into it without our agreement, just as you say...but he interpreted that not, as Sartre and Camus, that one simply had to "make choices" with no information, but rather that it is a basic fact that reminds us we are contingent beings, not the centre of the universe.

This world existed before you and I arrived. Presumably, it will exist after we are gone. Even Sartre and Camus thought that was true. So we are not self-sufficient beings, not eternal, and not necessary; we are here by the grace of God. And Kierkegaard pointed out that that opened up not only the space for faith but the necessity of faith. Because you and I are awfully small and local; and if we do not invest ourselves in the right way, placing faith in that which is the true Centre of the universe, the true Reason and Cause that we are here, we will not do well. Our lives will not become authentic, and we will not achieve the telos or purpose for which we found ourselves '"thrown into" life.

What you take as a rationale for total Nihilism, Kierkegaard saw as a fundamental necessitation of faith.
That's a long way of saying: "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)". We already know that.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:09 pm What you take as a rationale for total Nihilism, Kierkegaard saw as a fundamental necessitation of faith.
That's a long way of saying: "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)". We already know that.
No. That's a way of saying two things:

1. I understand why you see the world the way you do...and I acknowledge and celebrate your consistency in owning the consequences of that.

2. It's not the only way of understanding the world....what one person "can tell" from his or her singular perspective isn't the sum and total of indisputable truth. There are other assumptions, some of which I would argue are much better in terms both of reason and of evidence.

And we might add this: that not knowing something can issue in total cynicism or Nihilism. But there's no necessity, as per Kierkegaard, that that is the way one has to go. One can choose faith instead of despair.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:03 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:09 pm What you take as a rationale for total Nihilism, Kierkegaard saw as a fundamental necessitation of faith.
That's a long way of saying: "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)". We already know that.
No. That's a way of saying two things:

1. I understand why you see the world the way you do...and I acknowledge and celebrate your consistency in owning the consequences of that.

2. It's not the only way of understanding the world....what one person "can tell" from his or her singular perspective isn't the sum and total of indisputable truth. There are other assumptions, some of which I would argue are much better in terms both of reason and of evidence.

And we might add this: that not knowing something can issue in total cynicism or Nihilism. But there's no necessity, as per Kierkegaard, that that is the way one has to go. One can choose faith instead of despair.
More "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:37 pm More "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)".
Heh. :D

I see you're very committed to your worldview "as far as we can tell" being the sum and total of truth. There's nothing terribly unusual about that; lots of people fear to think differently from what they've chosen to think. It's frightening to realize there's another viewpoint for making sense of things. It implies you might...just maybe...have been wrong all along.

But what if you have? :shock:

Think about this: how sensible is it for anybody -- any human being, at any time -- to say, "Whatever I 'can tell,' at present, is 'as far' as truth can possibly go?" If it were anybody but you saying it to yourself, would you stand for that for one second? Or would you say, "I think you've stopped learning"?
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:49 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:37 pm More "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)".
Heh. :D

I see you're very committed to your worldview "as far as we can tell" being the sum and total of truth. There's nothing terribly unusual about that; lots of people fear to think differently from what they've chosen to think. It's frightening to realize there's another viewpoint for making sense of things. It implies you might...just maybe...have been wrong all along.

But what if you have? :shock:

Think about this: how sensible is it for anybody -- any human being, at any time -- to say, "Whatever I 'can tell,' at present, is 'as far' as truth can possibly go?" If it were anybody but you saying it to yourself, would you stand for that for one second? Or would you say, "I think you've stopped learning"?
Obviously I have investigated all these viewpoints already, and we both know that the evidence you refer to doesn't exist. Just more "I can't deal with the world as it is (as far as we can tell)".

What are you so afraid of anyway? That there won't be an afterlife for you?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:58 pm Obviously I have investigated all these viewpoints already, and we both know that the evidence you refer to doesn't exist.
I don't believe you, for the simple reason that the ability to say "I have been everywhere, seen all possible evidence, and have now concluded that no such information exists" is itself very obviously impossible.

You may as well claim, "I have already been my own grandfather." It would be just as possible.

But I'm prepared to hear you out, if you've got something you think warrants your claim.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:04 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:58 pm Obviously I have investigated all these viewpoints already, and we both know that the evidence you refer to doesn't exist.
I don't believe you, for the simple reason that the ability to say "I have been everywhere, seen all possible evidence, and have now concluded that no such information exists" is itself very obviously impossible.

You may as well claim, "I have already been my own grandfather." It would be just as possible.

But I'm prepared to hear you out, if you've got something you think warrants your claim.
I did investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, if there would exist some actual evidence, it would be known by now :)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:11 pm I did investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level...
Yeah, well, if you can find anybody who is prepared to believe that, send them along to me: I have some lovely real estate in Florida I'd like to unload, and they seem like just the right types.

At no point does the statement, "I have heard of no proof" translate into a justified claims of "Nobody else can know of any either," or "There IS no proof." It just means you need to get out of the house more.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:14 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:11 pm I did investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level...
Yeah, well, if you can find anybody who is prepared to believe that, send them along to me: I have some lovely real estate in Florida I'd like to unload, and they seem like just the right types.

At no point does the statement, "I have heard of no proof" translate into a justified claims of "Nobody else can know of any either," or "There IS no proof." It just means you need to get out of the house more.
Just because you have a mediocre mind, doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today.

No evidence anywhere so far, only baseless claims. Even for you fools, it would be simpler to present that evidence in 10 minutes to the world and be done with it, instead of playing games for decades that lead nowhere. :)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:30 pm Just because you have a mediocre mind, doesn't mean that everyone else does too.
:D So entertaining! Please, do continue, you sage you.
Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today.
Please, do tell.

How?
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:34 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:30 pm Just because you have a mediocre mind, doesn't mean that everyone else does too.
:D So entertaining! Please, do continue, you sage you.
Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today.
Please, do tell.

How?
At least 2 brain requirements, one is rare the other one is super rare, that they coincide in the same person is even rarer, but it's been known to happen sometimes. Won't go into that here.

Anyway, I don't care about having "faith" in objective morality. Subjective morality can be pretty liberating anyway, I don't mind at all that it's the case. If anyone's frightened here it's not me. :)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:52 pm At least 2 brain requirements, one is rare the other one is super rare, that they coincide in the same person is even rarer, but it's been known to happen sometimes. Won't go into that here.
No, no...let's go into that. I don't want to miss a step, and you must remember...I'm a person of limited ability here, you say.

You wrote:
"Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today."
So you say it can be done, some people have actually done it, and it's possible today.

So again, "how"? :shock:
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:58 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:52 pm At least 2 brain requirements, one is rare the other one is super rare, that they coincide in the same person is even rarer, but it's been known to happen sometimes. Won't go into that here.
No, no...let's go into that. I don't want to miss a step, and you must remember...I'm a person of limited ability here, you say.

You wrote:
"Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today."
So you say it can be done, some people have actually done it, and it's possible today.

So again, "how"? :shock:
I said "some level" (which is good enough), not an absolute level of knowledge
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:58 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:52 pm At least 2 brain requirements, one is rare the other one is super rare, that they coincide in the same person is even rarer, but it's been known to happen sometimes. Won't go into that here.
No, no...let's go into that. I don't want to miss a step, and you must remember...I'm a person of limited ability here, you say.

You wrote:
"Some people can actually investigate the total knowledge of humanity on some level, even today."
So you say it can be done, some people have actually done it, and it's possible today.

So again, "how"? :shock:
I said "some level" (which is good enough), not an absolute level of knowledge
Heh. :D But you said "the total knowledge of humanity." Wow. That's an "absolute level of knowledge," if ever there was one.

Time to ante up: who are these people who eliminated any possibility of the knowledge of God, and did it by plumbing "the total knowledge of humanity"? I want to go and meet these guys. How did they do it?
Post Reply