What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

You think there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to use a particular tool! Like language. Or philosophy. Or logic. While arguing AGAINST 'objective morality'.

I'm not arguing against objective morality, actually. The impossibility of objective morality is a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism's not true.

But you say you know in an "unqualified" way, that Atheism is true. I'm still waiting for the premises that support that claim. You've not given them yet.

So I ask again.

[TimeSeeker]

You think there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to use a particular tool! Like language. Or philosophy. Or logic. While arguing AGAINST 'objective morality'.

I'm not arguing against objective morality, actually. The impossibility of objective morality is a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism's not true.

But you say you know in an "unqualified" way, that Atheism is true. I'm still waiting for the premises that support that claim. You've not given them yet.

So I ask again.

I have no idea how you conceptualise “theism”, “atheism” or how you assert “truth”.

I don’t know how to parse any of those words.

I have no idea what standards for “impossibility” you regard either. For me “impossible” means “violates laws of physics”.

What I meant by “unqualified” is that the only claim I am willing to make is that “the universe is” and that I don’t know what you mean by qualifying the universe as “atheistic” without juxtaposing it with a “theistic” universe.

What is the empirical (testable) difference between the two universes?

[Immanuel Can]

You think there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to use a particular tool! Like language. Or philosophy. Or logic. While arguing AGAINST 'objective morality'.

I'm not arguing against objective morality, actually. The impossibility of objective morality is a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism's not true.

But you say you know in an "unqualified" way, that Atheism is true. I'm still waiting for the premises that support that claim. You've not given them yet.

So I ask again.

I have no idea how you conceptualise “theism”, “atheism” or how you assert “truth”.

I don’t know how to parse any of those words.

And yet you claimed to have "unqualified" certainty. I find those claims implausible to reconcile. One of them must not be true.

What I meant by “unqualified” is that the only claim I am willing to make is that “the universe is” and that I don’t know what you mean by qualifying the universe as “atheistic” without juxtaposing it with a “theistic” universe.

It's very simple. Is there such a thing as "God"? Is the world a deliberate creation of the Supreme Being, or is it a random collocation of atoms produced by impersonal accidents?

So if you still have that "unqualified" certainty, on what basis are you so certain?

[Ginkgo]

I'm not arguing against objective morality, actually. The impossibility of objective morality is a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism's not true.

Objective morality is equally a problem inherent to theism.

[Immanuel Can]

Objective morality is equally a problem inherent to theism.

Why do you suppose so?

[Ginkgo]

Objective morality is equally a problem inherent to theism.

Why do you suppose so?

Because there isn't a theory of God and/or morality that is not subject to criticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no formal explicit model of morality at present.

Science, medicine, social/well-being metrics. GINI coefficients, economic statistics, crime rates, education rates. Poverty rates.

They are the best encodings of 'morality' we have given our available formalisms (tools) for defining things.

Language is broken. You can't define anything useful in English without a corresponding measurement/metric.

You will find lots of literature on the topic around Systems Engineering/Safety managemen/Complexity theory/Risk management.
Scientists/practitioners are onto it It's a hard problem.

Start here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/signuptosafe ... e-papr.pdf

Note the Philosophy of Morality.
Those systems you listed above do not fall within the ambit or set normally labelled 'morality'.

I stated there is no formal system that is explicitly define for what it is within the norms of the Philosophy of Morality.

The nearest we get to one is the theological moral model which is based/grounded on "because God said so or else you will go to Hell." Such a model as implemented [coerced upon] has limited utility but also has the potential for terrible side effects of evil acts.

There is a loose system implied within the UN.
The UN establish ideals via various conventions, e.g. zero slavery, zero racism, zero contravention of human rights, zero child abuse, zero sex abuse, etc., and expect nations to ratify the conventions on a volunteer basis.
Isn't this objective moral ideals?
However, there are no effective control mechanisms to ensure each nation progress naturally to the ideals effectively.
Somehow there are results e.g. all nations has legally abolish chattel slavery in this is based on the subliminal compulsion and drive of the inherent moral function within humanity.

[uwot]

I have no idea how you conceptualise “theism”, “atheism” or how you assert “truth”.

I don’t know how to parse any of those words.

It takes a while to realise that Mr Can is using language in a way that is, at the very least idiosyncratic, probably dishonest and quite possibly absolutely batshit insane. Long story short, Mr Can is persuaded that a bunch of hopeless arguments for god are sound. In the present context, he is cobbling together his version of the ontological argument and the argument from morality and will abuse English in any way necessary to make his arguments valid. His reasoning goes like this:

It is possible to conceptualise a supremely good god.
A supremely good god would be even more supreme if it actually existed.
Since we can conceptualise a supremely good god, it must exist.
Mr Can would whinge that that isn't the modal version, but it's the same old bollocks.

Anyway, having convinced himself that this supremely good god exists, he concludes that whatever is commensurate with the nature of this supremely good god is objectively good. Since the nature of his god is to allow every child to be born guilty of a crime it didn't commit, the punishment for which is eternal torture and the only hope of avoiding hell is to worship human sacrifice, that is what supremely good means to Mr Can. It is objectively so, because in Mr Can's lexicon objective means god says so.
As for the specific words, note that Mr Can always capitalises Atheism. You can tell him till the cows come home that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, he's not interested, because he can't argue with that. Mr Can's Atheism is a positive assertion that no gods exist. Since there is no conceivable evidence that could prove that a metaphysical being does not exist, Mr Can attributes his Atheism to all atheists and insists they are irrational for believing something they cannot know to be true.

[TimeSeeker]

And yet you claimed to have "unqualified" certainty. I find those claims implausible to reconcile. One of them must not be true.

Non-sequitur. I have made no epistemic claims anywhere in our interaction. Probably because I first need to parse the semantics of your claim, before I can ascribe any belief. You have failed to draw a meaningful distinction between a 'theistic' and 'atheistic' universe. So I shrugged my shoulders at your tautology.

So if you still have that "unqualified" certainty, on what basis are you so certain?

Can you quote the exact sentence of mine which you call 'unqualified certainty'?

It's very simple.

Well, no. You have mistaken the complex for the simple. It is rather technical actually. Read my response to Peter Holmes here (click on the arrow to go to the post):

...

################ SEPARATOR ##################

Is there such a thing as "God"?

Since MY conception of a "god" is a null-pointer - I don't even know how to answer that.
In the language of semiotics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics ) : "god" is a signifier without a signified.

So the non-answer I can give you is "I have heard the word. I don't know what it means". Hence - null-pointer.

Is the world a deliberate creation of the Supreme Being

I have no idea how to answer you!

What if it was? Then what would and wouldn't we (humans) observe?
What if it wasn't? Then what would and wouldn't we (humans) observe?

Until you can propose a procedure (EXPERIMENT!) for us to distinguish those two cases science bows out gracefully.

And as a closing aside (so that you stop chasing red herrings). Certainty itself is not boolean. I ascribe certainties on a 0<->1 continuum. I am grounded in probability theory/statistical mechanics.
O => infinite disbelief
1 => infinite belief

Since infinities don't exist in a finite universe. I don't have any epistemic beliefs which are 0 or 1. If there is any absolute certainty you perceive coming from me, I can assure you (by Occam's razor) it's due to the poverty of English, not because of epistemic errors.

If this is still foreign to you then I suggest some reading: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Absolute_certainty
Now please stop committing this fallacy: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fallacy_of_gray

[TimeSeeker]

Note the Philosophy of Morality.
Those systems you listed above do not fall within the ambit or set normally labelled 'morality'.

That's just No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't recognise Philosophy's authority over moral matters. In fact - I think moral philosophers do more harm than good.

I stated there is no formal system that is explicitly define for what it is within the norms of the Philosophy of Morality.

Yes. It doesn't exist WITHIN PHILOSOPHY. If you want a well developed framework - refer to praxis. Risk management. There is vast amount of knowledge there. I you want a role model - look at the aviation and medical industries for systematic approaches based on the 'no harm' principle: https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/rand ... 20Fail.pdf

There is a loose system implied within the UN.
The UN establish ideals via various conventions, e.g. zero slavery, zero racism, zero contravention of human rights, zero child abuse, zero sex abuse, etc., and expect nations to ratify the conventions on a volunteer basis.
Isn't this objective moral ideals?
However, there are no effective control mechanisms to ensure each nation progress naturally to the ideals effectively.
Somehow there are results e.g. all nations has legally abolish chattel slavery in this is based on the subliminal compulsion and drive of the inherent moral function within humanity.

All of the "zero X" ideals generalize into "no harm".

On a scale of importance I don't consider racism, human rights and child abuse to be moral issues. Or rather - they aren't a priority to me.
They are social issues and demand some attention, but they are hardly an existential risk. The very argument I am making is that the ultimate moral concern for humanity is extinction.

The dinosaurs survived for 180 million years being brutal, violent and immoral to each other. That's not what killed them in the end.
Their strategy was competition instead of cooperation, and so in 180 million years they didn't get their asses off this planet.
I believe the kind of morality you seek to define emerges from co-operation, so I don't even care to define it.

[TimeSeeker]

It takes a while to realise that Mr Can is using language in a way that is, at the very least idiosyncratic, probably dishonest and quite possibly absolutely batshit insane. Long story short, Mr Can is persuaded that a bunch of hopeless arguments for god are sound. In the present context, he is cobbling together his version of the ontological argument and the argument from morality and will abuse English in any way necessary to make his arguments valid.

It's not really his fault. Most of philosophy has formed a robust-enough echo-chamber that they have convinced themselves they are onto something through excessive self-congratulatory back-patting while engaging in equivocations which are nothing more than 1st and 2nd order propositional logic.
They have a long way to go till they get to modality, multiple temporal dimensions, type theory and stochastics.

Alas. Hanlon's razor - so I shall attempt to teach where I can

Also, because I used to play the exact same games he is playing while I was still learning to think for myself.

[surreptitious57]

Atheism is not true

Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific truth claim pertaining to the existence of a metaphysical being commonly known as God
Non acceptance of the truth claim is not the same as rejection of it and as it cannot be disproven then the claim cannot be falsified

And less you can falsify the claim by providing evidence against it you cannot claim that atheism is not true
A philosophical argument for God is not evidence so using the ontological argument will not falsify atheism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the Philosophy of Morality.
Those systems you listed above do not fall within the ambit or set normally labelled 'morality'.

That's just No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't recognise Philosophy's authority over moral matters. In fact - I think moral philosophers do more harm than good.

I stated there is no formal system that is explicitly define for what it is within the norms of the Philosophy of Morality.

Yes. It doesn't exist WITHIN PHILOSOPHY. If you want a well developed framework - refer to praxis. Risk management. There is vast amount of knowledge there. I you want a role model - look at the aviation and medical industries for systematic approaches based on the 'no harm' principle: https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/rand ... 20Fail.pdf

There is a loose system implied within the UN.
The UN establish ideals via various conventions, e.g. zero slavery, zero racism, zero contravention of human rights, zero child abuse, zero sex abuse, etc., and expect nations to ratify the conventions on a volunteer basis.
Isn't this objective moral ideals?
However, there are no effective control mechanisms to ensure each nation progress naturally to the ideals effectively.
Somehow there are results e.g. all nations has legally abolish chattel slavery in this is based on the subliminal compulsion and drive of the inherent moral function within humanity.

All of the "zero X" ideals generalize into "no harm".

On a scale of importance I don't consider racism, human rights and child abuse to be moral issues. Or rather - they aren't a priority to me.
They are social issues and demand some attention, but they are hardly an existential risk. The very argument I am making is that the ultimate moral concern for humanity is extinction.

The dinosaurs survived for 180 million years being brutal, violent and immoral to each other. That's not what killed them in the end.
Their strategy was competition instead of cooperation, and so in 180 million years they didn't get their asses off this planet.
I believe the kind of morality you seek to define emerges from co-operation, so I don't even care to define it.

I had stated there is an inherent moral function within humanity.
There are certain norms with Philosophy of Morality which had been developed from the beginning.

Note this;

Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

What you are proposing is like "reinventing the wheel" re the idea and Philosophy of morality.
It is like trying to construct a new Framework for Science.
I am sure no matter how you stretch with the idea of 'morality' you will eventually revert the fundamental principles of the above.

Risk Management is a subject by itself but it can be introduced as a part within an effective Framework and Ethics of Morality and Ethics. We can also bring Science, consequentialism, axiology [necessary] and others.

As for racism, human rights and child abuse, etc. as moral and ethical issues we have to prepare a taxonomy and hierarchy of the range of evil acts and assign their appropriate weightages against the risk of extinction in various circumstances.

[TimeSeeker]

Risk Management is a subject by itself but it can be introduced as a part within an effective Framework and Ethics of Morality and Ethics. We can also bring Science, consequentialism, axiology [necessary] and others.

We are just tripping over taxonomy. What I call "risk management" is a conglomeration of many disciplines, and sciences which go back millennia, as well as my own professional expertise in fields which are less than 50 years old. So it's very unlikely that my box labeled "risk management" has the same contents as yours.

I had stated there in an inherent moral function within humanity.
....
I am sure no matter how you stretch with the idea of 'morality' you will eventually revert the fundamental principles of the above.

I agree that the moral function exists, but I think it pre-dates your own research by 3000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

And so it doesn't matter what we really call it. The label is just a placeholder. I use it for my own convenience/reference purposes.
Suffice to say that this idea has permeated human consciousness for at least 3000 years.

"We agree" is sufficient

[Veritas Aequitas]

Risk Management is a subject by itself but it can be introduced as a part within an effective Framework and Ethics of Morality and Ethics. We can also bring Science, consequentialism, axiology [necessary] and others.

We are just tripping over taxonomy. What I call "risk management" is a conglomeration of many disciplines, and sciences which go back millennia, as well as my own professional expertise in fields which are less than 50 years old. So it's very unlikely that my box labeled "risk management" has the same contents as yours.

I was once in the Insurance Consultant industry and we have to review the particular risk management system of each client and make recommendations. So I am reasonably familiar with the general principles of risk management.