What could make morality objective?

[Ginkgo]

IF there were a God, and IF He had a moral nature and had given moral directives, there would be absolutely no problem in saying morality was objective.

And if it turns out that God does not exist then you account of morality is grounded in a myth.

[Immanuel Can]

IF there were a God, and IF He had a moral nature and had given moral directives, there would be absolutely no problem in saying morality was objective.

And if it turns out that God does not exist then you account of morality is grounded in a myth.

Absolutely. Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims. It would all be a fix.

But we'd still desperately need to keep people from misbehaving -- especially within societies. Consequently, as Nietzsche pointed out so well a century ago, the only way to keep everybody in line would be power -- arbitrary power. We could indoctrinate, bully, force or threaten...but never explain, reason out, or justify any particular values at all.

[Dubious]

Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims.

The morality received under god - meaning those who created him - was one of the most vulgar and disgusting ever conceived and should have been chucked at least 1000 years ago. Talk about arbitrary power! There was never a greater example of that than religion itself, god claimed as its commander-in-chief.

The morality you proclaim as exclusively moral under god belongs in a landfill. Look what it's done to you and those like you...a putrefying relic making its exit at least in the western half of the world which refuses to be further guided by ancient texts long defunct. Your poison, still infected with ancient hatreds, is as dispensable on the planet as its possible to be.

But we'd still desperately need to keep people from misbehaving -- especially within societies. Consequently, as Nietzsche pointed out so well a century ago, the only way to keep everybody in line would be power -- arbitrary power. We could indoctrinate, bully, force or threaten...but never explain, reason out, or justify any particular values at all.

What a liar you are! Nietzsche never said anything so simplistic; we've been through this before. Reading your posts is a perfect example of religion's degrading effect on the human psyche. Lies and subterfuge is the sum of your morality kindly bequeathed to you by your moral Master.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Principle of Charity.
I meant laws that are grounded on sound and justified arguments.

You should say so. The Principle of Charity requires us to take people at their word. It's certainly not "charitable" to put words they didn't say in their mouths, is it?

But in any case, even were I to insert those words, it would not save the case. There are no such things as "grounded" laws, according to your view, because there's nothing to "ground" them. Unless you now have something?

Why 'slavery' is wrong is grounded on a sub-moral ground of the need to respect the basic human dignity of every human being not to be exploited as a means [object] for the interest of another person.

But to believe this, we have to have a prior principle that says, like Kant said, human beings must be "ends" not merely "means." But how does Kant know that? How does he know that, say Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley or Rand don't have the situation more right, and there are two classes of people, the weak and the strong -- the weak being rightfully viewed as the dross of society, and the strong being the gold? How does Kant know that all human beings are equally, not differently valuable?

He gives us nothing to show that he's got that right. (I think he does have it right, but he has that only by accident or presumption.) He does not ground it in anything. So what rational basis do we have for believing it's true?

Do you want to be used as a means fundamentally by anyone?
I don't think you would, so is any other human who is conscious of this normal expectation. [except perverts].
Thus the Golden Rules applies.
But note the Golden Rule is not an absolute moral law/rule/maxim.

From the above you will note there is now a break in the initial resistance and if one get into the stream of that momentum one will be able to get to the ground at least the most fundamental possible.
As I had stated I do not want to go into the details.

Every human being [including oneself] has a fundamental generic human state of dignity.

Why? Why are Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley and Rand all wrong? How do we ground this claim that all human beings are owed "dignity," whatever that is?

Kant went into great depth on this.

Thus one is insulting one own basic human dignity when one practices slavery.

You can't "insult" a thing that hasn't been established by being grounded. And in point of fact, if Darwin et al. are correct, then I maximize my dignity -- to borrow Nietzsche's words, I act like one of the "übermensch" -- when I disregard the moral whining of the weak and act on my "will to power," which is the real source of my "dignity," and that of the human race in general, according to him.

Why are these guys wrong?

It goes something like this, all humans has basic and generic qualities, i.e. basic human nature.
Thus if you do not the basic respect for human nature which is the same for every human, then you are insulting yourself.
In way, if you think basic human nature is shit [or whatever negative or derogatory], then you are accepting you are shit. No normal person would think would accept that.
This is why the concept of 'dehumanizing' others is such a serious moral issue that can end up with catastrophic consequences.

Note these people did not declare their views are 100% in accordance to the NT nor OT.

It was not I who grouped all Theists together, regardless of their particular beliefs. It was the UN, and previously, in this conversation, it was actually you.

Like the analogy of the diamond gem and piece of charcoal, we need to view them separately [distinctive characters] and the same [as pure carbon] in the right context and circumstances.

It is likely they were driven by their inherent human nature and evolving moral compass and not solidly by their religious doctrines.

If that were true, then we should expect that 1) every form of Theism should be equally represented in the statistics, and 2) Atheists and agnostics should contribute an equal amount to charity as all the rest. But as you can see, we find no such thing.

Note the principles characteristic of the Normal Distribution or Bell Curve.
ALL human qualities [variables] come in a continuum of degrees from the lowest to the highest.

You cannot deny both theists and non-theists contribute to charity in varying circumstances.
Note the Eastern religionists [non-theistic] are expected to contribute charity to all without any expectation of returns [compassion to all] but the Abrahamic religions has an ultimate proselytizing intention in their charity work.

[Immanuel Can]

Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims.

The morality received under god - meaning those who created him - was one of the most vulgar and disgusting ever conceived and should have been chucked at least 1000 years ago....

Heh.

Try living in a society with NO morality.

Of course, the only secular alternative is letting society just make up stuff and then force you to obey it.

Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you want to be used as a means fundamentally by anyone?

"Want"? "Want"?

"Want" has nothing to do with it. What we want, and what we're going to get are two very different things, if we have no grounds for morality.

I don't think you would, so is any other human who is conscious of this normal expectation. [except perverts].
Thus the Golden Rules applies.

You mean, "Because you want not to be used as a means, therefore you owe it to do to your neighbour what you would want done to you?" Is that really the logic you are advocating? Because that's what you just said, taken literally. And pretty obviously, it's not logical.

There's nothing about the fact that I don't like being used that makes it obligatory for me to be kind to my neighbour. If I'm strong and he's weak, and it suits me to do anything at all to him, who is there to say I cannot?

So the GR needs grounding. You can't just take it for granted. And it's certainly not grounded in my "wants," or self-evident from my dislike of being "used."

As I had stated I do not want to go into the details.

I know why. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

Why? Why are Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley and Rand all wrong? How do we ground this claim that all human beings are owed "dignity," whatever that is?

Kant went into great depth on this.

He did not. He never grounded that version of the CI in anything.

Thus one is insulting one own basic human dignity when one practices slavery.

You can't "insult" a thing that hasn't been established by being grounded. And in point of fact, if Darwin et al. are correct, then I maximize my dignity -- to borrow Nietzsche's words, I act like one of the "übermensch" -- when I disregard the moral whining of the weak and act on my "will to power," which is the real source of my "dignity," and that of the human race in general, according to him.

Why are these guys wrong?

It goes something like this, all humans has basic and generic qualities, i.e. basic human nature.
Thus if you do not the basic respect for human nature which is the same for every human, then you are insulting yourself.

No, you're not. You're insulting them.

But even if you were "insulting yourself," by some sort of vague implication, who says that's wrong to do? It's not obvious why you couldn't.

Equality isn't a self-evident thing either. What's evident is differences. And that's why things like discrimination are such hot topics today -- because everybody can see differences, not equality, but a whole bunch of us want equality anyway. So we have to argue for it, because it's not at all obvious.

In way, if you think basic human nature is shit [or whatever negative or derogatory], then you are accepting you are shit. No normal person would think would accept that.

No. All you're saying is that you think you're better than they are. And lots of people think such things.

This is why the concept of 'dehumanizing' others is such a serious moral issue that can end up with catastrophic consequences.

It can. But rarely do those consequences fall on everyone equally. Usually, there are winners and losers in that game, which is why the "winners" like it and the "losers" don't. But Darwin, Rand, Nietzsche et al. think that's just a fact of nature. There are winners and losers in the game of "survival of the fittest" too -- and in their view, there's nothing more natural than that.

You cannot deny both theists and non-theists contribute to charity in varying circumstances.

But to wildly different degrees and quantities. Having lived in the so-called "Developing World," (which is still suffering, more than "developing," I can tell you), I can also tell you that if we relied on Atheist charitable work for foreign aid, NGOs, medical initiatives, water projects, food programs or educational and business development, there would be none in a very short time. Almost all the charitable work is done by religions organizations or religious individuals. Atheists, with a few laudable exceptions, are generally not massive givers.

And why should they be? After all, in their view it's survival of the fittest. So charity is quite optional. Some do it -- and some are even very generous -- but the vast majority simply do not, and think themselves none the worse for not doing it.

[Dubious]

Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims.

The morality received under god - meaning those who created him - was one of the most vulgar and disgusting ever conceived and should have been chucked at least 1000 years ago....

Try living in a society with NO morality.

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place than simply obeying rules which, in spite of their ecclesiastic endorsements, still default to man-made in every instance. With the old desiccated moralities no-longer functional and dying of old age new ones come into being not suddenly but gradually. It’s also called the Search for Meaning, a secular enterprise which wasn’t required for as long as gods and religions ruled. All you had to do was obey and let yourself be instructed by sermons if you knew what was good for you! There also was never a society that didn't have a moral backdrop essential to its functioning independent of any religious propensities which makes your statement utterly ignorant and stupid...as usual!

Of course, the only secular alternative is letting society just make up stuff and then force you to obey it.

Forcing compliance as everyone knows by now is a religious function contained in its DNA which claims to know the truth and nothing but the truth ever ready to enforce submission by the most extreme methods imaginable...one of the few times they were allowed imagine anything! You’re one of the leftovers who still adhere to that old methodology.

When such evils happen in the secular realm it doesn’t take long for it to be labelled a crime against humanity by secular courts; such judgments would be completely foreign in your time-line of the good old days defending their sacred, devout, god-given truths against all heresies.

Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

Yeah! You often say that when you don’t know how else to conclude.

[Immanuel Can]

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place...

Describe it. Who creates it, how do we know it's "right," and why are we morally obligated to it?

[uwot]

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place...

Describe it.

Consequentialism.

Who creates it...

People who believe that treating others with respect is the definition of morality.

...how do we know it's "right,"...

Because that's what "moral" means.

...and why are we morally obligated to it?

Because if we don't treat others with respect, we are not behaving morally.

[Dubious]

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place...

Describe it. Who creates it, how do we know it's "right," and why are we morally obligated to it?

What creates yours; how do you know IT'S right and why would anybody be morally obligated to accept any of it?

The question goes both ways.

In short, describe what makes your brand of morality explicitly moral; what confirms it as being moral vis-a-vis secular morality already described many times in I don't know how many posts, not to mention all the books and essays written on the subject. There is even a brilliant critique of it denoting both its merits and demerits written by a former Bishop of Edinburgh who had the audacity to think beyond the strictly theological. It's people like him who also attempt to be familiar with the secular side of things whose opinions deserve most to be read. He despised the strict fundamentalist having experienced the utter futility of communicating with them not unlike what's happening here.

[Ginkgo]

Without God, there's really no such thing as "morality"...and neither warrant not possibility of any substance or obligation to subjective "moral" claims.

Of course there is morality without God. For example, Kantian ethics demonstrates that morality can be universalized, therefore it is an objective moral theory.

[Immanuel Can]

Without god there’s a more sophisticated morality in place...

Describe it. Who creates it, how do we know it's "right," and why are we morally obligated to it?

What creates yours;...

That really is no kind of answer.

You were the one who said that "a more sophisticated morality" is "in place." I'm just asking you to say what you know about this "more sophisticated morality."

Your claim, your burden-to-prove.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course there is morality without God. For example, Kantian ethics demonstrates that morality can be universalized, therefore it is an objective moral theory.

Consensus among philosophers, with which I would agree, is that if this was indeed Kant's ambition, he failed.

Even in Kant's own day, his absolute prohibition on things like lying was contested by critics of a more consequentialist turn of mind. And it never became clear what made particular acts in specific situations relevantly "the same" so as to require universalizing.

But worse than all that, his "universalization" formula is itself merely assumed or taken for granted, not demonstrated, and depends on prior principles Kant never even thought to demonstrate -- or maybe just couldn't, and thus didn't try. You can see this very clearly in his CI about "means" and "ends." It implies a conception of equality and intrinsic value that he never demonstrated. And nobody since Kant has been able to figure out exactly why his three different versions of the CI were, in his view, versions of the same CI. They look substantively different.

As Wood has shown, Kant was a teleologist. And teleologies are always dependent on an assumed anthropogeny, and presumed views of the objective meaning and purpose of human life. Both have to be argued for, not merely assumed as givens.

[Ginkgo]

Of course there is morality without God. For example, Kantian ethics demonstrates that morality can be universalized, therefore it is an objective moral theory.

Consensus among philosophers, with which I would agree, is that if this was indeed Kant's ambition, he failed.

Even in Kant's own day, his absolute prohibition on things like lying was contested by critics of a more consequentialist turn of mind. And it never became clear what made particular acts in specific situations relevantly "the same" so as to require universalizing.

But worse than all that, his "universalization" formula is itself merely assumed or taken for granted, not demonstrated, and depends on prior principles Kant never even thought to demonstrate -- or maybe just couldn't, and thus didn't try. You can see this very clearly in his CI about "means" and "ends." It implies a conception of equality and intrinsic value that he never demonstrated. And nobody since Kant has been able to figure out exactly why his three different versions of the CI were, in his view, versions of the same CI. They look substantively different.

As Wood has shown, Kant was a teleologist. And teleologies are always dependent on an assumed anthropogeny, and presumed views of the objective meaning and purpose of human life. Both have to be argued for, not merely assumed as givens.

We have had this discussion before, so I won't go into details, other than to use your fallacious argument from authority to say that the consensus among philosophers is that the God hypothesis in relation to morality fails.

[Dubious]

Describe it. Who creates it, how do we know it's "right," and why are we morally obligated to it?

What creates yours;...

That really is no kind of answer.

You were the one who said that "a more sophisticated morality" is "in place." I'm just asking you to say what you know about this "more sophisticated morality."

Your claim, your burden-to-prove.

Your typical cowardly reply, as always!

Believe as you like; it's one of the main privileges allowed by secularism and denied by theism as heresy. Seeing what your god has done to types like you, I'd rather flush IT down the toilet than having my brains flushed by a toxin which appears to have no antidote.

You also never respond to Uwot. Why is that? Did he one time demolish your lack of logic and integrity so far that you could hardly put yourself back together again? A tinge of yellow surrounds every argument you make.