Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I make moral judgements and decisions frequently, and so do the vast majority of people;

Yes, I'm sure you do. But if you're an Atheist, you cannot make them because they're right. You can only make them because they're convenient, or traditional, or habitual...but never because there's an objective reality backing the choice you make. It's always totally arbitrary, from an Atheist perspective.

Well it isn't strictly arbitrary, there is some sort of principle behind my moral judgements, but you are right, there is no objective reality backing up the moral choices I make.

Interesting. What's the principle you keep behind your moral judgments?

I am committed to following what I understand to be the truth.

As we all should be, I think...but then, I can say that's objectively so. I'm not sure how somebody who doesn't believe in objective morality can say what we should be doing.

My morality does have an objective source, which is myself,

But you are a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. The fact that you exist (for the moment) might be objective, but any morality derived therefrom cannot be. So I understand why you say it binds nobody.

You don't have any evidence, because there is no evidence.

Where's your evidence for the claim, "There is no evidence"?

You have none. It's a wish. It's a disposition. It's not a rational postulate.

As far as I'm aware, there is no concrete evidence for any supernatural claim, so I would say it is very rational to reject such claims when you make them.

Not really.

I don't know the location of Alpha Centauri. My friend, the astronomer, says he does. All I can say about that is that I personally still don't know where Alpha Centauri is...I can say nothing at all about what he knows.

Likewise, the fact that you admit you know of no evidence for God doesn't make it remotely rational for you to extend that into a more universal claim, and say that nobody does.

You actually have no idea what evidence there may or may not be, or who may have it...and the same is true for all of us, in every matter, so it's beyond the possibility of denial.

Yes, that is correct, but there are circumstances under which it is reasonable to judge something so unlikely that, unless solid evidence is produced, it is acceptable to expect that it never will be produced.

I would say the God hypothesis doesn't fit that set of criteria. Down through history, too many people have taken it seriously, and today, too many maintain that such evidence exists -- as do I, of course. All you can conclude from that is that you're not one of them. No more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As far as I'm aware, there is no concrete evidence for any supernatural claim, so I would say it is very rational to reject such claims when you make them.

Not really.

I don't know the location of Alpha Centauri. My friend, the astronomer, says he does. All I can say about that is that I personally still don't know where Alpha Centauri is...I can say nothing at all about what he knows.

Likewise, the fact that you admit you know of no evidence for God doesn't make it remotely rational for you to extend that into a more universal claim, and say that nobody does.

Whatever is claimed to be real and objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the most credible and reliable is the science-FSK [standard index at 100].

The existence of Alpha Centauri is empirical-rational evidence-based {see evidence below] and conditioned upon the science-physics-cosmological FSK, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity and realness, say at >50%.
Anyone can view and take pictures the Alpha Centauri from a proper telescope.


Alpha Centauri AB (left) forms a triple star system with Proxima Centauri, circled in red.

The claim of the existence of God as real is conditioned upon a human-based theological FSK, in your case, its the Christianity-FSK which provide NO direct empirical-rational evidence to support its claim. As such, relative to the science-FSK @ 100%, the objectivity of the theological FSK is 0.00000000___01% of objectivity and realness.

As I had proven;
It is Impossible for God to be Real [empirical-rationally]
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Harbal]

Yes, I'm sure you do. But if you're an Atheist, you cannot make them because they're right. You can only make them because they're convenient, or traditional, or habitual...but never because there's an objective reality backing the choice you make. It's always totally arbitrary, from an Atheist perspective.

Well it isn't strictly arbitrary, there is some sort of principle behind my moral judgements, but you are right, there is no objective reality backing up the moral choices I make.

Interesting. What's the principle you keep behind your moral judgments?

Moral principles.

I am committed to following what I understand to be the truth.

As we all should be, I think...but then, I can say that's objectively so. I'm not sure how somebody who doesn't believe in objective morality can say what we should be doing.

You described me as being committed to atheism, and I said I was committed to following the truth, not atheism. So your above comment doesn't make sense.

My morality does have an objective source, which is myself,

But you are a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. The fact that you exist (for the moment) might be objective, but any morality derived therefrom cannot be. So I understand why you say it binds nobody.

Nobody except me, of course.

As far as I'm aware, there is no concrete evidence for any supernatural claim, so I would say it is very rational to reject such claims when you make them.

Not really.

I don't know the location of Alpha Centauri. My friend, the astronomer, says he does. All I can say about that is that I personally still don't know where Alpha Centauri is...I can say nothing at all about what he knows.

Astronomy is a science, and corroborated confirmation of what your friend tells you about the subject is readily available if what he says is true. Were he to tell you that there was a highly advanced civilisation of coconuts living on Mars, would you feel you could say nothing at all about what he knows with the same amount of trust in his authority?

Likewise, the fact that you admit you know of no evidence for God doesn't make it remotely rational for you to extend that into a more universal claim, and say that nobody does.

If there were any genuine evidence for God, I am sure everyone would be aware of it. I mean, they don't report that kind of news in a short paragraph right at the back of the newspaper, do they?

Yes, that is correct, but there are circumstances under which it is reasonable to judge something so unlikely that, unless solid evidence is produced, it is acceptable to expect that it never will be produced.

I would say the God hypothesis doesn't fit that set of criteria.

And I would say it does.

Down through history, too many people have taken it seriously, and today, too many maintain that such evidence exists -- as do I, of course.

That doesn't mean they are right.

[Immanuel Can]

Well it isn't strictly arbitrary, there is some sort of principle behind my moral judgements, but you are right, there is no objective reality backing up the moral choices I make.

Interesting. What's the principle you keep behind your moral judgments?

Moral principles.

Which moral principles?

My morality does have an objective source, which is myself,

But you are a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. The fact that you exist (for the moment) might be objective, but any morality derived therefrom cannot be. So I understand why you say it binds nobody.

Nobody except me, of course.

It doesn't need to. When it become inconvenient, you can drop it -- and there will be nothing and nobody to tell you whether standing by it would have been right, or dropping it was wrong. All that can really be said is that when it suited H. to do X, he did X; and when it no longer suited him, he could abandon X without compunction, and did. Or that he stood by X, even though he had no objective obligation to do so, and isn't a better or worse person for whatever he did.

Not much moral guidance is provided by such a system. None at all, in fact.

Were he to tell you that there was a highly advanced civilisation of coconuts living on Mars, would you feel you could say nothing at all about what he knows with the same amount of trust in his authority?

Not a good analogy. Not only me, but a lot of very intelligent people have thought that the God hypothesis is a great deal more serious, and far more credible, than coconuts on Mars.

Likewise, the fact that you admit you know of no evidence for God doesn't make it remotely rational for you to extend that into a more universal claim, and say that nobody does.

If there were any genuine evidence for God, I am sure everyone would be aware of it.

They are. But a great many refuse the evidence, just as you do. In fact, the Bible says all men really know there is a God, but choose not to be grateful for anything He's done for them -- like giving them life and a world, at minimum -- and so, as Dr. Craig said, they "become darkened" in their minds, and hardened against God, and God let's them do that; because that's what freedom means. It means you can do the right thing, or the wrong thing, the true thing or the false thing, the fair thing or the unjust thing, the thing that leads to life and the thing that leads to death. And all those choices get to be genuine.

Down through history, too many people have taken it seriously, and today, too many maintain that such evidence exists -- as do I, of course.

That doesn't mean they are right.

That is correct. But it means there's something to take much more seriously than coconuts there. And before he gets dismissive, a smart man finds out what it is.

[Iwannaplato]

But you are a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. The fact that you exist (for the moment) might be objective, but any morality derived therefrom cannot be. So I understand why you say it binds nobody.

Nobody except me, of course.[/quote]

It doesn't need to. When it become inconvenient, you can drop it -- and there will be nothing and nobody to tell you whether standing by it would have been right, or dropping it was wrong.[/quote]Which is precisely the case for you related to your belief in God. YOu are a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. There is nothing stopping you from having a dark night of the soul and deciding there is no God. There is no one to confirm that when you feel you are in contact with a text, voice, presence of God, that that is God. You do your best in the given situation as a contingent, temporal and perishing creature. Which is partly why so many worship deities that are actually guilt and self-hatred. And others worship deities that entitle them to harm others. Often, as with Christianity, it manages to do both, often to different people.

Not much moral guidance is provided by such a system. None at all, in fact.

And we all know that moral guidance from God or what people think is God has led to all sorts of changes of mind, horrible behavior, loss of faith, change of faith, rebellion against God or what they think is God after faith in God. Contingent, temporal and perishing creatures do all sorts of things. It affects both one's epistemological positions, one's conclusions, what one believes in specific beliefs, what one believes at meta-levels, how one acts and tempermental changes over time. Fickleness or to put it more neutrallly changes over time is part of human nature, theists and atheists alike.

That is correct. But it means there's something to take much more seriously than coconuts there. And before he gets dismissive, a smart man finds out what it is.

I tend to agree. I don't think spaghetti monsters and coconuts on the moon work particularly well as analogies or parallels to God as a something to believe in.

[Harbal]

Interesting. What's the principle you keep behind your moral judgments?

Moral principles.

Which moral principles?

I doubt that my moral principles are vastly different to those of the average person brought up in a similar culture to mine.

Nobody except me, of course.

It doesn't need to. When it become inconvenient, you can drop it -- and there will be nothing and nobody to tell you whether standing by it would have been right, or dropping it was wrong. All that can really be said is that when it suited H. to do X, he did X; and when it no longer suited him, he could abandon X without compunction, and did. Or that he stood by X, even though he had no objective obligation to do so, and isn't a better or worse person for whatever he did.

That is more or less correct, in principle, although you have done your best to make it sound as trivial and worthless as possible. In practice, there is much more to it than you suggest, but you do actually know that.

Not much moral guidance is provided by such a system. None at all, in fact.

I don't find that to be the case.

Not a good analogy. Not only me, but a lot of very intelligent people have thought that the God hypothesis is a great deal more serious, and far more credible, than coconuts on Mars.

And a lot of very intelligent people have thought the the God hypothesis a load of nonsense.

If there were any genuine evidence for God, I am sure everyone would be aware of it.

They are. But a great many refuse the evidence, just as you do.

No, I don't accept that.

In fact, the Bible says all men really know there is a God, but choose not to be grateful for anything He's done for them -- like giving them life and a world, at minimum -- and so, as Dr. Craig said, they "become darkened" in their minds, and hardened against God, and God let's them do that; because that's what freedom means. It means you can do the right thing, or the wrong thing, the true thing or the false thing, the fair thing or the unjust thing, the thing that leads to life and the thing that leads to death. And all those choices get to be genuine.

And you think that makes sense, do you? Or that if it were true, there would actually be a point to it?

That doesn't mean they are right.

That is correct. But it means there's something to take much more seriously than coconuts there. And before he gets dismissive, a smart man finds out what it is.

Maybe I'm not a smart man, but I am quite satisfied there is nothing there worth taking seriously.

[henry quirk]

I doubt that my moral principles are vastly different to those of the average person brought up in a similar culture to mine.

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.

[Skepdick]

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.

Nobody ever thinks they would've been a Nazi in Nazi Germany,

[henry quirk]

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.

Nobody ever thinks they would've been a Nazi in Nazi Germany,

[Skepdick]

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.

Nobody ever thinks they would've been a Nazi in Nazi Germany,

It may well be that the core morality of Nazis is exactly the same as everyone else's, but it was the culture, time and place which influenced" them to commit attrocities.

[henry quirk]

Nobody ever thinks they would've been a Nazi in Nazi Germany,

Culture, time and place is precisely what influenced "good people" with "good core moralities" to commit attrocities.

Well free wills choose, yes, for all kinds of reasons (reasonings).

[Skepdick]

Well free wills choose, yes, for all kinds of reasons (reasonings).

Uhuh.

So do free wills get to choose whether killing 6 million Jews is moral or immoral?

Are free wills subjected to morality; or is morality subjected to free wills?

[henry quirk]

So do free wills get to choose whether killing 6 million Jews is moral or immoral?

No, a free will chooses to be moral or immoral.

Are free wills subjected to morality; or is morality subjected to free wills?

A free will is responsible for his choice.

[Skepdick]

So do free wills get to choose whether killing 6 million Jews is moral or immoral?

No, a free will chooses to be moral or immoral.

Are free wills subjected to morality; or is morality subjected to free wills?

A free will is responsible for his choice.

So when you said that...

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's.

Which core are you refering to exactly?

If I choose to be immoral and you choose to be moral,
If I choose to be abdicate responsibility for my choices; and you choose to be responsible for yours.

If we always make moral choices that we disagree about - what is the "core of our moralities" that is "exactly the same"?

[Harbal]

I doubt that my moral principles are vastly different to those of the average person brought up in a similar culture to mine.

I reckon the core of your morality is exactly the same as everyone else's. Culture, time, place: have nuthin' to do with it.

I think they have quite a lot to do with it.