Christian Morality

[RCSaunders]

No, not necessarily. Nobody said that. But in the case of "I believe it's raining," that's usually an adequate test; that, or sticking your head out in it, of course.

It's more like, "what the facts, carefully assessed disclose, you are warranted in believing."

Whatever! You did not answer the second question:

"What do you call a belief that is warranted?"

Yeah, I sort of did: it's a belief that is the most appropriate interpretation of such empirical facts. Was that not obvious?

No it wasn't. I've learned from experience to never assume what you mean.

Just as I will not assume what you mean by, "the most appropriate interpretation." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or how it would be decided.

[Immanuel Can]

I will not assume what you mean by, "the most appropriate interpretation." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or how it would be decided.

It's pretty common sensical, actually: the most probable interpretation of a given set of data is most likely to be true. And probability is derived from a bunch of other qualities, such as repeatability, coherence, compatibility with existing knowledge, simplicity, explanatory efficacy, elegance, and so forth -- not from them singly, but from their intersection.

That sounds complex, but it's actually not. We do it routinely, and often instinctively.

For example, if we have two explanations for a single phenomenon (say, the lateness of somebody whom we are appointed to meet), we automatically tend to opt for the more probable explanation (she is caught in traffic / she forgot ) rather than the less plausible (she's been arrested, she hates me) or the very implausible (she's been abducted by aliens / she was only a figment of my imagination). Of course, probability calculations never absolutely secure us in the right explanation -- it is possible for our appointee to hate us or to have been arrested -- but we weigh the strength of our beliefs based on how probable they appear to us. And this calculation is performed on an intersection of variables (we know her to be law abiding, perhaps, or the alien explanation doesn't cohere with what we already believe, isn't the simplest, and doesn't represent any repeated case in our experience, even though it is an adequate explanation in theory...)

So it's nowhere near so hard as you might presently be imagining for us to estimate the probability of an explanation being more likely to be right. We do it all the time, and even without knowing anything about the epistemic values in question at a conscious level.

And the same is what scientists do with data: they try to accept the explanation for any given phenomenon or data set that reflects the epistemic values, and to avoid explanations that fail to exhibit such features.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is tedious having to reread the whole of Hume's work but I am slowing doing it to dig out more of the statement relevant to the above point.

Hume is actually directing his condemnation of NOFI more strongly to theists

What Hume thought he was doing, and what Hume's logic compels are two different questions.

Hume thought he was attacking Christianity, and other kinds of moralizing generally. What he was actually doing was undermining the possibility of secular morality.

What he never saw, but subsequent ethicists certainly have, was that his criticism had bigger consequences for the possibility of secular morality than it ever could for Christians.

Sorry. That's the truth. That you don't know it merely bespeaks your narrow focus on criticizing what you don't like, but ignoring the even bigger problems with what you do like. But maybe that's just human nature, so it's understandable.

Still, you should think about it. For what Hume says doesn't just question secular morality; if he was right, it renders is implausible entirely.

There you go again, you did not read Hume thoroughly and yet arrogantly try to 'force words into Hume's mouth'.

From the quote it is so obvious the focus of Hume then was directly targeted at Christianity [the religion he was more familiar then] and the Christian morality.

Hume was not undermining secular morality at all. Where did you get that? Show me the relevant references from his book?

Aside from his main critique of Christian & theistic morality, he did critique the morality of the rationalists of his time who insisted morality is solely from reason and not empirical evidences.

Hume NEVER condemned morality per se but merely condemned those morality that arise from blind faith [Christianity] and those derived from reason.

Thus he wrote;

Treatise of Human nature [1739]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.

Hume related human morality with sentiments of empathy and compassion that arise from the soul originally which to him was from unknown causes.
During Hume's time there was ignorance of human sentiments but since then we have loads of knowledge about human sentiments, emotions, and how the brain works albeit there is still a lot to learn about the brain.

• In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#:

We have now been above to track mirror neurons to empathy which is a basis for human morality. As such there is a possibility of linking morality with moral facts based on the physical parts of the brain, thus are objective moral facts.

Don't try to pull a fast one when you have not read Hume's work thoroughly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"As a norm" means nothing more than "as the arbitrary declaration of some society or individual." So that adds no information. And it still leaves humanity with no way of saying that these things are absolutely or unconditionally wrong.

So it's not merely some "religions" that are condoning such things: it's Atheism. Atheism, in fact, "condones" everything, ultimately.

This simply underlines the point (often attributed to Dostoevsky), "If God is dead, everything is permitted."

You are too hasty with "arbitrary" in this case.

It's not a pejorative. It's an accurate descriptor.

Nothing that is merely made up by individuals (or groups) can fail to be arbitrary. And that's never more clear than if you insist that there is no objective morality to which any of these could be compared.

I have argued there are objective moral facts inherent within all humans, thus it cannot be arbitrary.

Out of the ~8 billion people, how many would volunteer to be killed, rape, enslaved and the likes?

Totally irrelevant.

Who is obligated to care what anybody "volunteers" for, if everything is arbitrary anyway? So what if, say, people don't like to be raped or enslaved; there are people who like to DO it. Explain why they are duty-bound to care more about the victim or slave than they do about themselves.

Your rationality is corrupted which is expected due to your blind faith.

All humans are 'programmed' to survive at all costs till the inevitable.
This is the objective standard in the DNA of all humans.
But yet there are people who want to end their life via suicide, etc.

According to WHO 700,000 committed suicide worldwide in 2021.
That is only 0.00875%.
Rationally this .00875% is merely a small deviation from the objective standard.
There is no denying the above objective standard exists as a fact.

Regarding Rape,

A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Thus those who volunteer to be raped [not statistically available] will be very low.
If 100,000 that would only be 0.00125%.
As such there is no denying there is an objective standard existing as a fact where the majority of people do not want to be raped.

Regarding Chattel Slavery, the % will be much lower in 2022.
As such there is no denying there is an objective standard existing as a fact where the majority of people do not want to be enslaved.

So it cannot be arbitrarily.

Note "volunteer" not forced or coerced.

It won't matter, unless you can also prove that that which is "voluntary" is always also "the good" or "the right."

Do you have such a proof of the perfect correlation between "volunteer" and "right"?

I stated no normal humans would volunteer to die prematurely, be killed, raped, enslaved.
What correlation of 'volunteer' and 'right' you are talking about.
As explained above the significant % of people not wanting to die prematurely, be killed, raped, enslaved indicate the existence of such objective facts, thus 'right' not 'wrong'.

Can you refute this drive is not a fact within humans?

It doesn't matter. Human beings have many "drives," and unless you can establish a correlation between "drive" and "right," this is also a pointless statement.

Human beings also have "drives" toward sexual rapacity, physical violence, theft, lying...are you going to say all those things are "right" merely because they are "drives"?

You got it wrong here.
Human beings do not have any natural drives toward sexual rapacity, physical violence, theft, lying.. and the likes.

There is, however, some insignificant % of people [as explained above with serious evil acts] who [due to defect in RNA replications] that trigger them to deviate from the norm.

I am sure you will agree to this explanation.
All humans has either the objective biological fact of being male and female in their DNA.
It is only during RNA replications of the DNA codes that deviations in the neural connections happen in the reprogramming that some could end up with transgender feelings.
Thus a transgender female will claim to be a female but that is only psychologically but there is the inherent verifiable biological fact therein.

It is the same with what I am claiming as the inherent verifiable biological moral fact within all human beings regardless of their current psychological states.
The problem is the inherent verifiable biological moral fact is very subtle and not obvious. But then I have already give you a clue re Mirror Neurons.
I am optimistic, in the future, with the advances of the Human Connectome Project, humanity will be able to identify more exactly the inherent verifiable biological moral fact, and thus be able to expedite its activity.

Thence, morality is a natural factual thing and not a God given element.

[Peter Holmes]

Having any number of fake gods does not imply there is no real one. If there were a thousand fake "Peters," that would not make you not exist.

True. But I do (at least appear to) exist. By contrast, to my knowledge there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of even one god.

I don't deny that you are telling the truth about that: you don't know any evidence for God, you say.

Well, who am I to doubt that you know no such evidence, if you say that's how it is?

That, however, falls short of being a fact of any consequence to anybody but you. You're surely not going to insist that just because you don't know something, nobody else can, are you?

I didn't think so.

Agreed. I believe and know only things for which I have, or I think there is, evidence. And the burden of proof is always with the claimant - unmet, so far, to my knowledge, by supernaturalists, such as theists. But perhaps you have the actual evidence - not just claims - that will clinch it for the rationally skeptical.

I can see you're not paying close enough attention to what I say.

I said that IF your ontology (or better, theology) was correct, you WOULD BE correct. However, I believe your theology to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then so is your conclusion that nothing can warrant an objective moral truth.

It's interesting that I can fully understand your perspective, even while not agreeing with your suppositions, but you seem to find it impossible to get outside your own suppostions. Most curious.

This has nothing to do with ontology - what actually exists.

Yes, it does. Ontology precedes all. You can't say anything about what is true until you've already ruled on what exists to be considered as possibly true.

Yes, ontology does come first, which is why supernaturalism doesn't even make it to the starting post. But you persistently fail to address the point. Even if the creator-god of your fantasy did'/does exist, that still wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And I've explained why, many times.

The claim 'this god wants X for us' is a factual assertion which logically can't entail the conclusion 'therefore X is morally right'.

Yes, it can.

No, it can't. And this is a matter of logic - of what deductive entailment involves. A conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise or premises. This is logic 101.

Just as you are free to say what is the intended meaning of your own words, or what is the purpose of something you, yourself, create, so too God is the Master Arbiter of the meaning and value of everything He creates.

Yes, a creator-god would be free to say 'This is what I created this thing (say, childhood cancer) for, and this is its meaning and its value.' But that doesn't mean that the purpose and value of the created thing are morally good (or bad). Those are matters of judgement. Yours is a might-makes-right argument, which, ironically, you condemn as the consequence of moral subjectivism.

The only way the "is-ought" problem is even a problem is if that which exists is not a deliberate Creation of God, but some sort of accidental "happening," instead, as say Materialism has to imply.

You simply don't understand the logical non sequitur.

Value is in the eye of the valuer.

It depends who the Valuer is.

False.

When you and I evaluate something, we do it as fallible. God is not fallible. When He says why He created what He created, and what its ultimate value is, He's always right.

This has nothing to do with infallibility, or omniscience, or any other supposed attribute of a supposed creator-god. The moral rightness or wrongness of an action is never - can never be - in the gift of the actor - no matter who the actor is. And your refusal to acknowledge that fact is why you're stuck with a logically invalid argument.

Suppose - heaven forfend - a god disvalues homosexuals and witches and wants them to be killed. That's a matter of opinion with which others can disagree.

There are at least two problems with that objection: one is that "others can disagree" means, according to your own account, that nothing more is happening than that fallible people are subjectively feeling a different way than that. The second is that it does not mean that killing homosexuals and witches is even bad. That is, if, as you say, there is no such thing as an objective moral value.

What evasive codswallop! This god subjectively disvalues gays and wants them to be killed. By contrast, some humans subjectively value gays and want them to be protected. What 'more' do you suggest is or should be happening in this moral disagreement? Is the god 'right', just because it created humans for a straight purpose? So is it 'right' to kill gays?

It's precisely and blessedly because there are no moral facts, that we don't have to robotically obey the morally disgusting commands of a primitive desert god. To hell with decorum: you and your barbaric invented god can fuck off.

Show that: why do you think it's a "nul point"? It's no good simply asserting that without reasons.

I've explained why it's a non sequitur many times - but here's why again. If a premise doesn't make a moral assertion - using 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', 'ought to' or 'should' - then a moral conclusion can't follow, because a conclusion can't introduce information not contained in the premise or premises.

That begs the question of whether or not a truthful premise can be a mere "is." The Materialist assumption has to be that ALL premises are merely "is" premises. But the Christian presupposition is that premises always have a moral dimension, even when Materialists refuse to acknowledge that.

Frankly, I'm sick of this. Of course there can be and are moral premises - what straw man nonsense! And the claim that all premises have a moral dimension is a supreme example of question-begging: all premises are essentially moral; so any premise can entail a moral conclusion.

So what we have, again, is a difference of ontology. But what I am conceding to you, Peter, is that you are entirely right IF Materialism is true. However, what you're struggling with is the realization of what follows if Materialism is false, and Creationism is true.

For example, to say 'I believe X is beautiful' is not to say there is some factual or objective standard of beauty to which X conforms - that the aesthetic assertion 'X is beautiful' has a factual truth-value.

You're mixing two cases: aesthetics are a matter of human decision, of course. Find and dandy. But even you would not confuse them with empirical claims -- which you would regard as "is" claims, no?

So you would not, for example, say that the evaluation, "If you jump off the roof, you will break your leg" is an aesthetic claim, would you? And you would not say it was a moral claim either, would you? You would say it was an empirical fact.

So the analogy between aesthetics and facts is incorrect. If you want to believe that moral judgments are merely aesthetic, of course you can. But I think you're wrong. Moral judgments are factual judgments.

I find this hard to credit. The analogy is between moral and aesthetic assertions, both of which are non-factual.

And empirically, you and I are going to find out who's right about that.

Well, pucker our lips with a little self-satisfied, self-righteous smirk. Hoo, hoo, hoo. Nauseating.

[Immanuel Can]

It is tedious having to reread the whole of Hume's work but I am slowing doing it to dig out more of the statement relevant to the above point.

Hume is actually directing his condemnation of NOFI more strongly to theists

What Hume thought he was doing, and what Hume's logic compels are two different questions.

Hume thought he was attacking Christianity, and other kinds of moralizing generally. What he was actually doing was undermining the possibility of secular morality.

What he never saw, but subsequent ethicists certainly have, was that his criticism had bigger consequences for the possibility of secular morality than it ever could for Christians.

Sorry. That's the truth. That you don't know it merely bespeaks your narrow focus on criticizing what you don't like, but ignoring the even bigger problems with what you do like. But maybe that's just human nature, so it's understandable.

Still, you should think about it. For what Hume says doesn't just question secular morality; if he was right, it renders is implausible entirely.

There you go again, you did not read Hume thoroughly and yet arrogantly try to 'force words into Hume's mouth'.

Not at all. But I can see that you don't understand the difference between what Hume may have (incorrectly) thought, and what the logical implications of his claims necessarily are.

Hume NEVER condemned morality per se

He certainly did...by implication, if not by intention. There is simply no way secularism escapes Hume's famous "gilloutine."

Hume related human morality with sentiments of empathy and compassion

Yes, he thought that he could save secular moralizing by appealing to Emotivism. But we know now he was simply wrong about that: Emotivism isn't legitimizable, isn't reliable, and can't ground any morality.

So we're back to where Hume left us: there's no possibility of a grounded secular morality. Hume didn't realize that, because he was naive about Emotivism; but we now do.

[Immanuel Can]

You are too hasty with "arbitrary" in this case.

It's not a pejorative. It's an accurate descriptor.

Nothing that is merely made up by individuals (or groups) can fail to be arbitrary. And that's never more clear than if you insist that there is no objective morality to which any of these could be compared.

I have argued there are objective moral facts inherent within all humans, thus it cannot be arbitrary.

This is a false claim.

A thing can be "objectively inherent," and also immoral. The impulse for violence, lying, theft and tyranny is in every human being. That does not imply they are "moral."

Out of the ~8 billion people, how many would volunteer to be killed, rape, enslaved and the likes?

Totally irrelevant.

Who is obligated to care what anybody "volunteers" for, if everything is arbitrary anyway? So what if, say, people don't like to be raped or enslaved; there are people who like to DO it. Explain why they are duty-bound to care more about the victim or slave than they do about themselves.

Your rationality is corrupted which is expected due to your blind faith.

Not at all. You have to prove not just that humans are "programmed" for something (to use your rather inadequate words), but that that "program" is itself moral.

Yet the "program" includes many immoral things. War and prostitution are two of the oldest things "programmed" into people.

..those who volunteer to be raped [not statistically available] will be very low.

Who "volunteers" for any such thing?

And what difference does "volunteering" make? Have you proved, yet, that "voluntary" and "right" are the same? No, you haven't even tried...because you can't.

Note "volunteer" not forced or coerced.

It won't matter, unless you can also prove that that which is "voluntary" is always also "the good" or "the right."

Do you have such a proof of the perfect correlation between "volunteer" and "right"?

I stated no normal humans would volunteer to die prematurely, be killed, raped, enslaved.

You're not getting the point.

You have to prove that "volunteered" means "right," and "not-volunteered" means "wrong." You have nothing that will enable you to do that, so you duck the question.

Human beings do not have any natural drives toward sexual rapacity, physical violence, theft, lying.. and the likes.

Really? Really? You think that?

Okay, tell me, then: if human beings have no bad drives, then where do these things come from?

All humans has either the objective biological fact of being male and female in their DNA.

Oh. So now you're against trangenderism and non-binarism? They are denials of "objective biological fact"? I agree.

You're right...but I have to wonder why you believe that. You have no reason to, so far as I can see.

[Immanuel Can]

True. But I do (at least appear to) exist. By contrast, to my knowledge there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of even one god.

I don't deny that you are telling the truth about that: you don't know any evidence for God, you say.

Well, who am I to doubt that you know no such evidence, if you say that's how it is?

That, however, falls short of being a fact of any consequence to anybody but you. You're surely not going to insist that just because you don't know something, nobody else can, are you?

I didn't think so.

Agreed. I believe and know only things for which I have, or I think there is, evidence.

Well, I know you can say "I don't have evidence." That, I believe.

But how can you be so dogmatic about what evidence "there is"? I can only suppose that you don't know the evidence for many things...It does not even remotely imply there is no evidence for anybody else. It does not even imply that Peter will not come to know some evidence he presently lacks, if he waits five minutes: that's called "learning," and we all do it.

So your objection does not go so far as to declare "what there is." It stops at only this: "Peter does not presently know any evidence, if such exists."

And that's hardly something even worth debating. I can take your word for it.

This has nothing to do with ontology - what actually exists.

Yes, it does. Ontology precedes all. You can't say anything about what is true until you've already ruled on what exists to be considered as possibly true.

Yes, ontology does come first, which is why supernaturalism doesn't even make it to the starting post.

Show that.

Why does "supernaturalism" not "make it to the starting post," except if a person simply decides not to believe in it? Because if that's all it is, then nothing "makes it past the starting post," because it's possible to refuse to believe in anything arbitrarily.

But you persistently fail to address the point. Even if the creator-god of your fantasy did'/does exist, that still wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And I've explained why, many times.

Actually, I've addressed it repeatedly. I don't know how to help you understand the explanation...but it's certainly been provided.

Here it is again:

Just as you are free to say what is the intended meaning of your own words, or what is the purpose of something you, yourself, create, so too God is the Master Arbiter of the meaning and value of everything He creates.

Yes, a creator-god would be free to say 'This is what I created this thing (say, childhood cancer) for, and this is its meaning and its value.' But that doesn't mean that the purpose and value of the created thing are morally good (or bad).

You're failing to recognize the difference between a human judgment (arbitrary, only as right as it conforms to objective fact) and the Creatorial power to make particular things with particular moral functions and roles (which is absolute, ultimate, never wrong, and objective).

If God says a man's ultimate purpose is to know Him, then that's his ultimate, objective purpose; if he purposes not to, he is simply using his free will to violate that ultimate, objective purpose -- and thus, behaving immorally. But a man's decision to refuse to actualize his the objective purpose for which he was created does not make that ultimate, objective purpose disappear: it just makes the man immoral himself.

False.

When you and I evaluate something, we do it as fallible. God is not fallible. When He says why He created what He created, and what its ultimate value is, He's always right.

This has nothing to do with infallibility, or omniscience, or any other supposed attribute of a supposed creator-god.

Yes, actually: it does. I realize that's the part you can't get your head around, but it's true.

The moral rightness or wrongness of an action is never - can never be - in the gift of the actor

It is a function of the act of Divine creation.

What God makes a being for, that is its purpose. It is moral for that entity to enact that purpose and role, and immoral for it not to.

You and I are not the Creator. That is why our judgments are contestable. His is not, by virute of the fact that none of these things would even exist at all without His creatorial intentions. He made them what they are, for the reasons He did, and for the role to which He assigned them.

You and I never did that. So analogies with lesser "actors" are irrelevant, when it comes to God. Your judgment and mine are fallible. His is not even potentially fallible.

Suppose - heaven forfend - a god disvalues homosexuals and witches and wants them to be killed. That's a matter of opinion with which others can disagree.

There are at least two problems with that objection: one is that "others can disagree" means, according to your own account, that nothing more is happening than that fallible people are subjectively feeling a different way than that. The second is that it does not mean that killing homosexuals and witches is even bad. That is, if, as you say, there is no such thing as an objective moral value.

What evasive codswallop! This god subjectively disvalues gays and wants them to be killed.

The hypothetical was yours. I simply took you at your word. If you now are revolted by your own hypothetical, do not blame me for that.

But from your own view, you have no way of saying, "Killing gays is objectively wrong." It's not, according to your thinking: it's only subjectively wrong, which means "Right if I want it to be."

By contrast, some humans subjectively value gays and want them to be protected.

And some want to beat them with baseball bats....subjectively, of course.

Which one is objectively right? I don't: but if I were to hate gays and want to hurt them, would I be an objectively "worse" person than you?

Prove it.

The analogy is between moral and aesthetic assertions, both of which are non-factual.

That's purely assumptive, on your part.

I do not think moral and aesthetic assertions are non-factual. I think that only aesthetic assertions are subjective, and moral ones are factual.

Which of us is objectively right? And am I objectively a "worse thinker" for believing differently than you do on that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What Hume thought he was doing, and what Hume's logic compels are two different questions.

Hume thought he was attacking Christianity, and other kinds of moralizing generally. What he was actually doing was undermining the possibility of secular morality.

What he never saw, but subsequent ethicists certainly have, was that his criticism had bigger consequences for the possibility of secular morality than it ever could for Christians.

Sorry. That's the truth. That you don't know it merely bespeaks your narrow focus on criticizing what you don't like, but ignoring the even bigger problems with what you do like. But maybe that's just human nature, so it's understandable.

Still, you should think about it. For what Hume says doesn't just question secular morality; if he was right, it renders is implausible entirely.

There you go again, you did not read Hume thoroughly and yet arrogantly try to 'force words into Hume's mouth'.

Not at all. But I can see that you don't understand the difference between what Hume may have (incorrectly) thought, and what the logical implications of his claims necessarily are.

Hume NEVER condemned morality per se

He certainly did...by implication, if not by intention. There is simply no way secularism escapes Hume's famous "gilloutine."

Yes, his famous "gilloutine" was to chop off the head of Christianity's morality which is given from an illusory God which is clearly stated in his No Ought From Is statement.

You don't seem to get it, Hume was not against morality per se but merely the rationalist view of secular morality.

Hume related human morality with sentiments of empathy and compassion

Yes, he thought that he could save secular moralizing by appealing to Emotivism. But we know now he was simply wrong about that: Emotivism isn't legitimizable, isn't reliable, and can't ground any morality.

So we're back to where Hume left us: there's no possibility of a grounded secular morality. Hume didn't realize that, because he was naive about Emotivism; but we now do.

True, emotivism is not reliable because it is highly intuitive.
I don't believe Hume approach was purely emotivism, but rather he is speculating with some unknown deep in the brain which is not necessary emotions alone.

But Hume was on target with his claim that morality is related to passion [in the brain] rather than reason. [there is a basis for reasoning in morality but not of the rationalists' approach].

During Hume's time, the empirical knowledge of the brain was limited. But at present we have sufficient knowledge of the brain to confirm Hume was aiming at the right direct with passion [in a way].

[Immanuel Can]

You don't seem to get it, Hume was not against morality per se but merely the rationalist view of secular morality.

You don't get it...it doesn't matter!

What Hume argued works, independent of Hume's personal naivete. If there is no ought from is, then secular morality is dead; and Emotivism doesn't fix that.

Hume was just not aware of the failure of Emotivism.

emotivism is not reliable because it is highly intuitive.

That's just one reason.

Worse than that, it's unlegitimizable. It's grounded in nothing, and cannot be defended. Meanwhile, moral "emotions" vary, of course, so there's not even a sociological argument to be made for it.

Take a look at the debates over abortion. There's no doubt both sides have emotions. That doesn't mean both sides are right.

I don't believe Hume approach was purely emotivism

It was. Check it out.

He had nothing that protected secular morality but his naive trust in Emotivism. And since Emotivism has long since been debunked, secular morality is marched up the steps to Hume's gilllotine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not a pejorative. It's an accurate descriptor.

Nothing that is merely made up by individuals (or groups) can fail to be arbitrary. And that's never more clear than if you insist that there is no objective morality to which any of these could be compared.

I have argued there are objective moral facts inherent within all humans, thus it cannot be arbitrary.

This is a false claim.

A thing can be "objectively inherent," and also immoral. The impulse for violence, lying, theft and tyranny is in every human being. That does not imply they are "moral."

Nah that is a strawman.
All humans are "programmed" with inherently "good" and "evil" facts as potentials.
That is where Christianity jumped to the false conclusion all humans are born with sinful as proclaimed by an illusory God.
What are evil facts [violence, rape, etc.] cannot be term 'good' or moral facts, so I will definitely NOT conflate evil with good which you think I am.

All humans are inherently embedded with the fact of an evil potential in their DNA and brain. The point that many [& some] do not commit evil is because they have efficient inhibitors to modulate those potential, like have having efficient dams to modulate a 'rogue' river during floods.
Because these supposed facts of with evil potentials [the 4Fs: fight, flight, food, fornicate] are critical for survival of the species, they were activated earliest from the emergence of humans.
Unfortunately as human evolved further, these evil potentials were abused as greater evil into murders, genocides, rapes, etc. which could threaten the species especially with the glaring existence of WMDs [nuclear and biological].

But nature is not that stupid.
Thus it was only natural that the facts of the inherent potential for good [morality] begin to unfold slowly to counteract the evil acts.

The philosophical problem we faced today is because the facts of moral potential are very subtle and thus not easily recognized by the majority for various reasons.
But more and more of humanity are slowly recognizing the existence of moral facts [opposite to evil facts] as the moral potential continue to unfold.

Totally irrelevant.

Who is obligated to care what anybody "volunteers" for, if everything is arbitrary anyway? So what if, say, people don't like to be raped or enslaved; there are people who like to DO it. Explain why they are duty-bound to care more about the victim or slave than they do about themselves.

Your rationality is corrupted which is expected due to your blind faith.

Not at all. You have to prove not just that humans are "programmed" for something (to use your rather inadequate words), but that that "program" is itself moral.

Yet the "program" includes many immoral things. War and prostitution are two of the oldest things "programmed" into people.

Note my explanation above re 'good' facts [moral] and evil facts [immoral] inherent within all humans.
Like I say, nature is not that stupid, there is always a complementarity of opposites for balance albeit they are activated at different rates, but the good will always prevail over the evil, else the human species will be extinct.

..those who volunteer to be raped [not statistically available] will be very low.

Who "volunteers" for any such thing?
And what difference does "volunteering" make? Have you proved, yet, that "voluntary" and "right" are the same? No, you haven't even tried...because you can't.

Not too sure of your point?
Say if 100% of human volunteer to be killed, that would be unnatural to what is deemed to be nature.
Therefore it is 'right' not to volunteer to be killed, else the human species will be extinct.
Those who volunteer are the 0.000125% exceptions.

It won't matter, unless you can also prove that that which is "voluntary" is always also "the good" or "the right."

Do you have such a proof of the perfect correlation between "volunteer" and "right"?

I stated no normal humans would volunteer to die prematurely, be killed, raped, enslaved.

You're not getting the point.

You have to prove that "volunteered" means "right," and "not-volunteered" means "wrong." You have nothing that will enable you to do that, so you duck the question.

see my proof above.
Not volunteering to be killed mean 'right'.

Human beings do not have any natural drives toward sexual rapacity, physical violence, theft, lying.. and the likes.

Really? Really? You think that?

Okay, tell me, then: if human beings have no bad drives, then where do these things come from?

Note my earliest point above.
All humans are "programmed" necessarily with certain drives which are potential facts of evil, i.e. the 4Fs when deviated are evil acts, e.g. fight to killing for no good reason, fornicate with force, etc.

Newton's 3rd Law is natural and inevitable but this was expressed thousands of year before him, e.g. Yin & Yang.
Thus it is very natural the what is potentially evil [evil facts] will be countered with what is potentially good [moral facts].

All humans has either the objective biological fact of being male and female in their DNA.

Oh. So now you're against trangenderism and non-binarism? They are denials of "objective biological fact"? I agree.

You're right...but I have to wonder why you believe that. You have no reason to, so far as I can see.

When and where have I agreed with the transgender ideology?

My point is, where there is objective biological fact of male or female, then it is at least hypothetical there are objective moral facts that promote what is good. Of course, I am convinced my hypothesis re moral facts is true as substantiated by evidence and argument.

[Immanuel Can]

All humans are "programmed" with inherently "good" and "evil" facts as potentials.

That doesn't say anything. If they are "programmed" for both, then they aren't "programmed" at all.

What are evil facts [violence, rape, etc.]...

Oh? "Evil facts," you say?

You're a moral objectivist?

What do you base that objective claim on?

But nature is not that stupid.

"Nature," if such a thing can be invoked here, has no "mind" at all. So it's much more stupid than you're even suggesting.

Or are you now suggesting there's some Intelligence that makes "nature" do particular, moral things, and not others?

Note my explanation above re 'good' facts [moral] and evil facts [immoral] inherent within all humans.

Thats not an answer.

You need to explain where things like "rape" and "slavery" come from, if not from us, and why you think they're objectively evil...which clearly, you do.

Not too sure of your point?

Very sure.

Say if 100% of human volunteer to be killed, that would be unnatural to what is deemed to be nature.

No it wouldn't. Besides, whatever you mean by "unnatural," it's clearly not something that cannot be done, so your "nature" must allow it. Death is the most "natural" and, in fact, universal sort of thing.

So you're just talking rot there.

But you don't say anything about why you think "volunteering" is a moral requisite of anything. What makes things that people "volunteer" for right, and non-volunteered-for things wrong?

see my proof above.

There isn't one. There's a claim with neither rational justification nor proof.

Note my earliest point above.

You still haven't answered.

My point is, where there is objective biological fact of male or female, then it is at least hypothetical there are objective moral facts that promote what is good.

That doesn't follow at all.

Why would bi-genderism entail that there must be moral facts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are "programmed" with inherently "good" and "evil" facts as potentials.

That doesn't say anything. If they are "programmed" for both, then they aren't "programmed" at all.

You are countering hastily from ignorance.

Humans has all sorts of "program" necessary for survival.
Example humans are program to eat but also not to eat the same thing.
Have you heard of 'The law of diminishing marginal return'.
When one is hungry one will initially gorge on food, like they say, "one could eat a horse" but there is an inbuilt 'food stat' where at a certain point, even the tastiest food can be nauseating!

It is the same with good [moral] and evil potential being "programmed" within all humans. This is so obvious and it is insult to your intelligence to argue otherwise.
There are many evil serial killers who were at the same time good husband and parent.

What are evil facts [violence, rape, etc.]...

Oh? "Evil facts," you say?
You're a moral objectivist?
What do you base that objective claim on?

Yes, for morality, I am a moral objectivist and I have proven my case so far.

But nature is not that stupid.

"Nature," if such a thing can be invoked here, has no "mind" at all. So it's much more stupid than you're even suggesting.
Or are you now suggesting there's some Intelligence that makes "nature" do particular, moral things, and not others?

That is the problem with you where you take such things too literally.
It is like a river is not 'stupid' if it is blocked with a boulder, the river will divert and continue to flow downward.
You will be insulting your own intelligence to infer the river is intelligent.

Note my explanation above re 'good' facts [moral] and evil facts [immoral] inherent within all humans.

Thats not an answer.
You need to explain where things like "rape" and "slavery" come from, if not from us, and why you think they're objectively evil...which clearly, you do.

Again you are insulting your own intelligence by doubting 'rape' and 'slavery' is not evil.
I have defined 'evil' elsewhere as any human act that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual or humanity.
'Killing another human is the extermination of the other person well-being' the other evils acts has a net-negative impact of the well-being of individual, i.e. pains, sufferings [mental and physical] stress, etc..

Say if 100% of human volunteer to be killed, that would be unnatural to what is deemed to be nature.

No it wouldn't. Besides, whatever you mean by "unnatural," it's clearly not something that cannot be done, so your "nature" must allow it. Death is the most "natural" and, in fact, universal sort of thing.

So you're just talking rot there.

But you don't say anything about why you think "volunteering" is a moral requisite of anything. What makes things that people "volunteer" for right, and non-volunteered-for things wrong?

Again you are so ignorant.
While nature "programs" death, it also "programs' continual birth to ensure the survival of the species. Surely you are not ignorant of this?
If survival of the species is natural, then anything that counters it potentially is 'unnatural'.
If your maxim is 'killing is permissible' if morality it has to be universal, then that is the counter to the survival of the species, thus immoral.

I did not state people volunteer for right at all.
The only thing about volunteer is I insist no normal human being will volunteer to be killed, so "not to be killed" is the moral fact as programmed within.

see my proof above.

There isn't one. There's a claim with neither rational justification nor proof.

I anticipate, you are not likely to see that 500 pound gorilla right in front of you when you have such selective attention due to cognitive dissonance.

My point is, where there is objective biological fact of male or female, then it is at least hypothetical there are objective moral facts that promote what is good.

That doesn't follow at all.

Why would bi-genderism entail that there must be moral facts?

Note it is an analogy. You understand how an analogy is supposed to work?

I stated,
".. then it is at least hypothetical there are objective moral facts that promote what is good."

So far I have justified why my hypothesis is likely to be true.

[Immanuel Can]

All humans are "programmed" with inherently "good" and "evil" facts as potentials.

That doesn't say anything. If they are "programmed" for both, then they aren't "programmed" at all.

You are countering hastily from ignorance.

You are dully ad hominem...and wrong.

There are many evil serial killers who were at the same time good husband and parent.

Yeah?

Name one. Let's examine your data.

But nature is not that stupid.

"Nature," if such a thing can be invoked here, has no "mind" at all. So it's much more stupid than you're even suggesting.
Or are you now suggesting there's some Intelligence that makes "nature" do particular, moral things, and not others?

That is the problem with you where you take such things too literally.

So did you mean to imply that "Nature," your new substitute for God, has intelligence? Or did you mean, "Yes, Nature has no brain"? Which is the literal truth?

Note my explanation above re 'good' facts [moral] and evil facts [immoral] inherent within all humans.

Thats not an answer.
You need to explain where things like "rape" and "slavery" come from, if not from us, and why you think they're objectively evil...which clearly, you do.

Again you are insulting your own intelligence by doubting 'rape' and 'slavery' is not evil.

I'm not doubting it. I believe it.

I'm asking what you base YOUR belief on.

I have defined 'evil' elsewhere as any human act that is net-negative

"Net-negative" being defined by whom?

In the Holocaust, the Nazis believed that killing people was "net positive." It conduced to their "master race," they saw.

How is your definition less arbitrary than theirs?

While nature "programs" death, it also "programs' continual birth to ensure the survival of the species.

So death, which is so "negative" for all individuals, is "net-positive" because it conduces to "survival of the species"?

If you think like that, you'd make a good Nazi.

My point is, where there is objective biological fact of male or female, then it is at least hypothetical there are objective moral facts that promote what is good.

That doesn't follow at all.

Why would bi-genderism entail that there must be moral facts?

Note it is an analogy. You understand how an analogy is supposed to work?

Yep. And this one doesn't "work" at all.

So spell it out, and be literal. How does bi-genderism imply objective moral facts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That doesn't say anything. If they are "programmed" for both, then they aren't "programmed" at all.

You are countering hastily from ignorance.

You are dully ad hominem...and wrong.

What??
That is a fact based on your postings.
I did not state you were are serial killer or something like that, thus your views are false. If I do that, it would be ad hominen.

There are many evil serial killers who were at the same time good husband and parent.

Yeah?

Name one. Let's examine your data.

Again this is ignorance on your part! [don't accuse me of ad hominen].
Here are the facts and truth,

Dennis Lynn Rader (born March 9, 1945) is an American serial killer known as BTK (an abbreviation he gave himself, for "bind, torture, kill"), the BTK Strangler or the BTK Killer. Between 1974 and 1991, Rader killed ten people in Wichita and Park City, Kansas, and sent taunting letters to police and newspapers describing the details of his crimes

Rader was a member of Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita and had been elected president of the church council.[20][30] He was also a Cub Scout leader.[20]

In an interview with ABC News in 2019, Rader's daughter Kerri said she still writes to her father and has now forgiven him, but still struggles to reconcile him with the BTK killer, stating her childhood seemed normal and they were a "normal American family"

There are many such case as above.
Now you MUST admit you are ignorant in this knowledge and the ad hominen fallacy just don't apply.
Point is you are so ignorant is so many fields of knowledge because you were enslaved by your need for consonance in clinging to an illusory God.

"Nature," if such a thing can be invoked here, has no "mind" at all. So it's much more stupid than you're even suggesting.
Or are you now suggesting there's some Intelligence that makes "nature" do particular, moral things, and not others?

That is the problem with you where you take such things too literally.

So did you mean to imply that "Nature," your new substitute for God, has intelligence? Or did you mean, "Yes, Nature has no brain"? Which is the literal truth?

None of the above.
To me 'nature' is merely an emergence.
Whatever is the truth of nature, it must be empirically verified and philosophically justified.
To state the 'nature is not that stupid' is to bring it down to your level so you can get the point, but it seem you are not getting it.

Thats not an answer.
You need to explain where things like "rape" and "slavery" come from, if not from us, and why you think they're objectively evil...which clearly, you do.

Again you are insulting your own intelligence by doubting 'rape' and 'slavery' is not evil.

I'm not doubting it. I believe it.

I'm asking what you base YOUR belief on.

I raised two thread to explain the above, i.e.
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746
Independent Moral Fact [Chess]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34747

I have defined 'evil' elsewhere as any human act that is net-negative

"Net-negative" being defined by whom?
In the Holocaust, the Nazis believed that killing people was "net positive." It conduced to their "master race," they saw.
How is your definition less arbitrary than theirs?

Strawman as usual,
Note I wrote;
I have defined 'evil' elsewhere as any human act that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual or humanity.
Hey, you are a Christian, thus should not be a deceptive person with the above sort of cheating.

The killing of all those who are not of the 'master race' perhaps 90% of the world population then would not be for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
I have read, "There must be an optimum number of people on Earth to ensure continuation of the species" don't have the reference now.

While nature "programs" death, it also "programs' continual birth to ensure the survival of the species.

So death, which is so "negative" for all individuals, is "net-positive" because it conduces to "survival of the species"?

If you think like that, you'd make a good Nazi.

Your thinking is so perverted.

From empirical evidence it is obvious the main drive is to produce the next generation, so the "program" is to target for birth of the next generation, and then when that is done, then death pursues.
Note the case of salmon, mayfly, and so many living things that follow such a pattern and it is the same with humans.

That doesn't follow at all.

Why would bi-genderism entail that there must be moral facts?

Note it is an analogy. You understand how an analogy is supposed to work?

Yep. And this one doesn't "work" at all.

So spell it out, and be literal. How does bi-genderism imply objective moral facts?

The biological fact of male/female is encoded in the DNA just a the moral fact of say 'not wanting to be rape' if encoded in the DNA of all humans.
The variation from normality of gender [bi-genderism] that arise from RNA replication [are you familiar with this?] is the same as the variation of the norms of moral fact [e.g. the suicidal].
Therefore moral facts e.g. rape,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

existing objectively and independently of individual opinions;
Independent Moral Fact [Chess]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34747

I anticipate you will again try to be deceptive in cutting out the relevant and critical points in my statements in your next counters. Note this is sinful.