What could make morality objective?

[Magnus Anderson]

There are electrical potentials flowing from high to low, but that is not language.
When you turn a switch to turn on a light, there are flow of electrical impulses but we do not regard that as 'language'.
There are flow of electrical impulses between potential within slugs and other organisms [even bacteria], but we do regard that as language.

If there is no language, there is no perception.

There can be no such thing as language-free perception. I've already presented a very simple proof of that.

[iambiguous]

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

In other words, no one forces you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No one forces you to embrace the Christian Bible as the foundation for objective morality.

Quite right.

One can always do the wrong thing -- and accept the consequences. That's what free will entails...free to do the right thing, and also free to do the wrong one. There's no other way free will can even be real.

Indeed, given free will, just run that by these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

God or No God, virtually all of them would agree. On the other hand, for many, it is you who will suffer the consequences for doing the wrong thing and choosing the wrong God or spiritual path.

Ah, but that's when you direct them to those 17 videos enabling them to grasp that beyond a leap of faith or quoting from the Christian Bible, science itself proves there is a God, the God. And then the New Testament historians and scholars prove that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the grave. And only the real deal God could accomplish that.

But at least no one actually forces you to save your own soul.

Nobody forces us not to do anything. Nobody forces us not to enslave people, to commit suicide, or even to rail against God as much as we want. But that's not the same thing as to say these choices have no natural consequences entailed in the choice, nor to say that we will be free from ultimate justice if we make bad choices.

Come on, IC, a part of you must recognize the difference here. If there is no Christian God and you enslave someone, there are only "natural consequences" if you get caught. Or what if you are living in a community where slavery itself is thought to be natural? Did not any number of Christians rationalize slavery by actually quoting from the Christian Bible itself:

"The Holiness code of Leviticus explicitly allows participation in the slave trade, with non-Israelite residents who had been sold into slavery being regarded as a type of property that could be inherited." wiki

Here's how the faithful rationalize it:

"The Purpose of Slavery

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality." compelling truth site

So morally speaking, we are forced to grow up. And that means that we take responsibility for the choices we have made. We don't blame others, or act as if we had no choice. We do. We just don't have infinite lease on bad choices having no consequences.

Again, how would this rationalization be any different from the arguments many of those linked to above provide us? From their frame of mind, it is time for you to grow up.

Meaning, of course, that far, far more important than listening to what the faithful tell you about their God, is the extent to which they can demonstrate that it is their own God [and only their own God] that brings about consequences.

In this case, the consequences for henry and I and Harbel and others here will be to endure the terrible agony of roasting in Hell for all of eternity if we don't "grow up" and accept your own God.

Right?

[Immanuel Can]

But at least no one actually forces you to save your own soul.

Nobody forces us not to do anything. Nobody forces us not to enslave people, to commit suicide, or even to rail against God as much as we want. But that's not the same thing as to say these choices have no natural consequences entailed in the choice, nor to say that we will be free from ultimate justice if we make bad choices.

Come on, IC, a part of you must recognize the difference here. If there is no Christian God and you enslave someone, there are only "natural consequences" if you get caught.

Not even necessarily then...because maybe one's particular society approves slavery.

So sometimes, we think there are no consequences. But there are still natural consequences. Because one is enslaving people, one's soul becomes hard and inhuman toward a segment of the human race, and probably toward suffering generally. Because one has no regard for the fact that all people are made in the image of God, one becomes contemptuous of human rights generally. And because one is going to face judgment before God, one is inevitably going to answer to the very last point for all that one has done.

The Christian view is that justice is inescapable, because whatever one believes, there will be full accountability in eternity, under the eye of the all-seeing God, who never misses a particle of what one thinks or does. Justice will be served; and it can be served on your personally, or on the One who has taken your judgment on your behalf, and offers you forgiveness, restoration to right relationship with God, and a better way forward, Jesus Christ.

Justice is a natural consequence. Believe it or not.

Here's how the faithful rationalize it:

If what you were saying were right, then all Christians would own slaves. But it was the Christian insight that all men are made in the image of God that actually freed the slaves. It was William Wilberforce who devoted his life to eliminating slavery from the British Empire...and he was a devout Christian. It was in the name of God that the slaves were freed in the US, as well...though around the rest of the world, they were not freed, and in many places, are still not freed.

If you look in Scripture, you'll find the radical idea that even people who are trapped in slavery and cannot get their freedom are full citizens of the Kingdom of God, and can still serve God. That's a far cry from the idea that human beings can be chattels, and that they are less than anybody else. And all that is from the Christian tradition.

No doubt you can probably find some perverse souls who have, historically, tried to rationalize slavery from the Bible. But then, what will the evil NOT abuse for their own propagandistic purposes? They've certainly abused economics, politics, and even science that way. Why would you suppose that mendacious men would stop short of trying to manipulate Scripture to their selfish purposes, as well?

I guess it depends on how much one understands of human nature.

So morally speaking, we are forced to grow up. And that means that we take responsibility for the choices we have made. We don't blame others, or act as if we had no choice. We do. We just don't have infinite lease on bad choices having no consequences.

Again, how would this rationalization be any different from the arguments many of those linked to above provide us?

Oh, in some ways, it's not. All religions and ideologies claim to be "the most right." Even those that self-present as universalist and tolerant of all other ideologies will actually admit that you're "better" for being with them on that then for having an exclusive view: so ironically, the universalists are just as exclusive as the most exclusive religions: all of them insist their way is true.

But what of that? It does not argue for any special conclusion. All it gives us reason to realize is that a lot of people are wrong. And that would be apparent, even if we didn't know which religion or creed were true. The fact that they conflict and contradict makes it inevitable.

Meaning, of course, that far, far more important than listening to what the faithful tell you about their God, is the extent to which they can demonstrate that it is their own God [and only their own God] that brings about consequences.

What would you consider a satisfactory "demonstration" of that?

In this case, the consequences for henry and I and Harbel and others here will be to endure the terrible agony of roasting in Hell for all of eternity if we don't "grow up" and accept your own God.

Well, I was only saying that a mature view of ethics requires us to grow up, accept free will as a fact, and accept our responsibility for our own choices. And with that, they might well fully agree. I suspect Henry would, for sure: he's very Classical Liberal, almost Libertarian-like, in many of his views. And they're just fine with the suggestion that the individual must have, make and be responsible for his choices.

Harbal...I don't know. But for sure, the alternative certainly doesn't seem tenable: that is, to think one is not free, not responsible for one's choices, and doesn't have to take responsibility for any of them; and I'm reasonably certain that's not what he believes, and I'm reasonably sure you're not campaigning for that, are you?

But if you want to extend the claim beyond ethics to eternal destiny as well, I'm not averse to do so. The Bible makes the claim that all men are responsible for the choice of what they do with God as well as with ethics/morals. And we all have to be responsible for that choice, too. But for somebody who's prepared to take that responsibility, it need not be a threatening thing at all; it can be a welcome opportunity, and should be. That's how the Bible presents it. It says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" , and "See, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation." The present project God has is not condemnation but salvation. But man will use his free will however he will use his free will; and no choice is free from consequences. If a man simply refuses to be saved, what is to be done with him? He must be lost, and lost by his own free will.

And it's not a good thing to be lost from God for eternity. So better to go with the present project, no?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are electrical potentials flowing from high to low, but that is not language.
When you turn a switch to turn on a light, there are flow of electrical impulses but we do not regard that as 'language'.
There are flow of electrical impulses between potential within slugs and other organisms [even bacteria], but we do regard that as language.

If there is no language, there is no perception.

There can be no such thing as language-free perception. I've already presented a very simple proof of that.

At present, Perception and Language are in complementarity but based on the evolutionary timeline, perception preceded language.
Show me references where it is claimed language preceded perception right after abiogenesis to the point where perception and language in any organism can be described.

[Iwannaplato]

It depends on what you mean by "compels."

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

And there are costs for going against what one's social group/society says are the morals, regardless of whether these are couched as objective or intersubjective.
And for anyone navigating the world of claims that set X is the list of objective morals, they have a number of options to choose from, all told to them by very convinced believers that their set of morals is the objective one. And this makes each particular list of morals less convincing and less compelling, regardless of the source.

But if it exists, objective duty did was not followed by everyone, nor is it now.

Exactly.

Having a law doesn 't force anybody to obey it. It just tells you you're in the wrong when you don't obey it, and makes it clear why you're going to be prosecuted by the authorities, subsequent to your refusal to do it, or praised by your peers when you do fulfill that duty. It provides moral clarity, not personal motivation.

And, again, any individual will be presented by a number of lists of duties each claiming that there list is the correct objective one. So, clarity is absent.

Those who do not believe in objective values are allowing for, expecting, assuming there are only subjective and intersubjective values. But people might not listen to those.

Right, too.

But the difference is profound: the person who disregards or violates a subjective "duty" hasn't even violated a real "duty."

It's not real to you, just as your sense your list of duties is not real to people with different ideas about what are objective duties or those who think there are no objective duties. So, the situation is not different.

He's not guilty of any badness, or negligence or even callousness, since nobody owes it to anybody else to follow a purely subjective morality. But the violator of an objective duty is not only objectively wrong to do so, but worthy of reproach or correction by his peers or society, and under the ultimate judgment of God, for having failed to obey what was his objective duty to obey.

According to those who believe that is the correct list. Not according to the others. Same situation.

...there is nothing that makes people follow morals, whether they are viewed objective or subjective or whatever.

True; but we are not talking about what motivates or makes people follow morals.

OK, great. So, we are not talking about motivation. There is no extra reason why someone is more likely to follow what some people claim is an objective set of morals.
I have been misreading you, then. I thought you were saying that no one has to listen to or follow a list of morals that is considered intersubjective rather than moral. Of course people do this all the time, with exceptions. But if you are merely talking about an abstract different without practical implications, fine.

We're really talking about what morals they ought to obey, whether they feel motivated or not, and what is due to them when they fail to do so, or succeed in fulfilling their objective moral duties.

That may be what some people are talking about. The focus of the thread if we go by the OP is what could make morality objective.

That's quite a different problem, and one in which motivation is a very secondary question, if we can bring it in at all. The primary one, the moral one, is "What duty has been fulfilled or violated?"

And then determining which claims to objective duties are the correct ones, for everyone.

Another, simpler way of saying this is to say, if a traffic sign says 100km /60 mph, that does not make somebody go only 100/ 60, nor does it explain why they chose instead to go 120 km / 70 mph. It only tells them what truly was their duty to be doing, and explains to them why the policeman gave them the ticket.

And those tickets work and don't work regardless of whether they are viewed as based on rules created intersubjecitvely or objectively. I avoid tickets. I do not think speed limits are determined based on objective morals. I do value life and I am sympathetic to my fellow humans who did their best or at least some of them tried to when they came up with the speed limits.

If someone arrived with a scripture that had rules for the 21st century driving speeds, it wouldn't change how I viewed speeding, given my own values.

And there'd likely be another guy, with another scripture, with another set of speed limits.

[Immanuel Can]

It depends on what you mean by "compels."

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

And there are costs for going against what one's social group/society says are the morals, regardless of whether these are couched as objective or intersubjective.

That's just a case of power. And power isn't morality. Power is what other people, who are actually no more special or authoritative than you are, use to take away your free will and impose their own in its place. It's what they use to take away your choices, not to allow them to you.

And for anyone navigating the world of claims that set X is the list of objective morals, they have a number of options to choose from, all told to them by very convinced believers that their set of morals is the objective one.

Right. So they have to decide which is the actual objective one, and then make a choice about whether or not to be objectively moral in a given instance.

And this makes each particular list of morals less convincing and less compelling, regardless of the source.

There's no reason it should. Nothing in the proliferation of different moral opinions implies there's not a more right or even an absolutely right set of answers.

...any individual will be presented by a number of lists of duties each claiming that there list is the correct objective one. So, clarity is absent.

I don't think that's how it goes at all. More often, the individual is presented with only one list of moral values -- that imposed by his parents or the circumtances of his upbringing, and he simply never questions them. I don't find many people investigate multiple moral codes, or even that most people are particularly keen to examine the moral code they, themselves, have stumbled into believing.

Those who do not believe in objective values are allowing for, expecting, assuming there are only subjective and intersubjective values. But people might not listen to those.

Right, too.

But the difference is profound: the person who disregards or violates a subjective "duty" hasn't even violated a real "duty."

It's not real to you,

No, it's not real at all. And what makes it unreal is that it is invented by only one person, and governs only one person, and only by his wishes, and only until he stops wanting to follow it. That means it really governs nothing at all.

He's not guilty of any badness, or negligence or even callousness, since nobody owes it to anybody else to follow a purely subjective morality. But the violator of an objective duty is not only objectively wrong to do so, but worthy of reproach or correction by his peers or society, and under the ultimate judgment of God, for having failed to obey what was his objective duty to obey.

According to those who believe that is the correct list.

No. According to objective truth. Regardless of what people decide they wish to believe rather than the objective truth, they're bound to be wrong. That's the nature of objectivity...of truth.

...there is nothing that makes people follow morals, whether they are viewed objective or subjective or whatever.

True; but we are not talking about what motivates or makes people follow morals.

OK, great. So, we are not talking about motivation. There is no extra reason why someone is more likely to follow what some people claim is an objective set of morals.

Well, unless they want to be right. Then there's a reason.

I thought you were saying that no one has to listen to or follow a list of morals that is considered intersubjective rather than moral.

I am.

That's quite a different problem, and one in which motivation is a very secondary question, if we can bring it in at all. The primary one, the moral one, is "What duty has been fulfilled or violated?"

And then determining which claims to objective duties are the correct ones, for everyone.

Yes, of course. But that's called "having a life."

Another, simpler way of saying this is to say, if a traffic sign says 100km /60 mph, that does not make somebody go only 100/ 60, nor does it explain why they chose instead to go 120 km / 70 mph. It only tells them what truly was their duty to be doing, and explains to them why the policeman gave them the ticket.

And those tickets work and don't work

Of course not. Because they're a mere human convention. Their utility is limited.

Not so with divine justice, of course. So there, the analogy fails: it's not a "policeman" we're dealing with, far less a human policeman. It's an all-knowing and absolutely righteous God. And at the end of the day, that's where the buck stops in regard to morals.

[Iwannaplato]

That's just a case of power. And power isn't morality.

Then the threat of eternal damnation should be taken off the table.

Power is what other people, who are actually no more special or authoritative than you are, use to take away your free will and impose their own in its place.

It seems like God does this also, at least some people's versions of God. The threat of eternal damnation is a use of power. And any individual who relays what they consider the message of God is also using power on other people. Neither God nor these people are merely informing people about what is good and what is bad, they are using power. God is restraining the amount of power, but not compelling, but it is still a use of power. The individual humans who relay it are using quite a high degree of power, especially when telling children.

It's what they use to take away your choices, not to allow them to you.

Well, you still have the power of choice in the face of secular uses of power. You can say no, be jailed or killed or whatever. So, no one can absolutely compel you to be moral in the way they want. God, in the omnipotent forms of the deity could.

There's no reason it should. Nothing in the proliferation of different moral opinions implies there's not a more right or even an absolutely right set of answers.

Right, but I didn't say it ruled out a right set of morals. I said this proliferation made each objectivist's moral claims less convincing. If everyone came up with the same ones, there would still be issues, but it each new reiteration of the (supposed) objective morals, would not lead to it being less convincing.

Not so with divine justice, of course. So there, the analogy fails: it's not a "policeman" we're dealing with, far less a human policeman. It's an all-knowing and absolutely righteous God. And at the end of the day, that's where the buck stops in regard to morals.

Sure, but here we are with many versions of that deity or deities. And many lists of morals.

[Harbal]

That still doesn't mean one of them ought not to choose to do otherwise, anytime it's to his advantage. So that makes morality a mere inconvenience imposed on the majority, but which the minority can violate at will, without compunction. And that's pretty much what we have now.

Morality of the sort you advocate probably worked "better" when our social structures were more rigid.

Objective morality cannot be founded on "structures of society," whether "rigid" or "flexible." Society is manifestly always in a condition of flux, to one degree or another, and all societies perish, inevitably; meanwhile, there's no objective duty for anybody to obey its dictates, even if they were unchanging.

Any objective duty to obey the dictates of a particular society would have to be superordinate (i.e. higher than and above all) to the particular dictates and to the societies themselves. And if one has already denied that such duties can even exist, where does one turn for such a superordinate axiom?

Up until relatively recently -in historic terms- society was far more rigidly structured, and everybody knew and accepted their place in it. People tended not to question authority as they do now. For hundreds of years the Church was the most powerful and influential social institution, and if the Church said something was morally wrong, it simply was morally wrong, and not open to debate. I daresay they considered Church morality to be objective truth.

[Immanuel Can]

That's just a case of power. And power isn't morality.

Then the threat of eternal damnation should be taken off the table.

Is it a "threat" when one tells a smoker that he's going to give himself cancer? I suppose, in one sense, one might think it was. It's certainly a bad outcome. But it's not one you're imposing, but one the smoker is choosing. And in that sense, it's not a threat but a natural outcome.

And what is the natural state of affairs chosen by those who reject any relationship with the Author of all goodness, health, light, hope, joy, truth and peace? What can we call what they choose for themselves but "Hell"?

Should we tell people what they are choosing? Or would that be an arbitrary use of power, a threat? I would say not. I would say it's simply a warning to people that they are making a very important choice, and one the natural consequences of which are significant, to say the least. The alternative is to let them stumble blindly on, possibly making a choice they have not fully thought through. And if that's what the situation is (and I think it is) I suspect most people would rather be told what they're doing than not to be told.

It's what they use to take away your choices, not to allow them to you.

Well, you still have the power of choice in the face of secular uses of power. You can say no, be jailed or killed or whatever. So, no one can absolutely compel you to be moral in the way they want. God, in the omnipotent forms of the deity could.

Yes, but not and allow human freedom, identity, and choice, and not while making a relatioship possible. The reason is not a lack of power, on God's part, but a lack of coherence between compulsion and the desired goals. You cannot make somebody love you; you can force them to be obedient, but that's not at all the same dynamic. (We do have names for forced relationships, of course; but I think none are savoury or worthy of attributing to God.)

So freedom of choice means having the right to say "yes" freely to God, or to say "no" freely. But again, all choices have outcomes that naturally flow from them. And the choice to divorce oneself from the Source of all goodness is a very poor choice indeed.

But at least it's free. And freedom is of surpassing value, because it makes personhood possible. And without personhood, there's no love relationship between two persons.

There's no reason it should. Nothing in the proliferation of different moral opinions implies there's not a more right or even an absolutely right set of answers.

Right, but I didn't say it ruled out a right set of morals. I said this proliferation made each objectivist's moral claims less convincing. If everyone came up with the same ones, there would still be issues, but it each new reiteration of the (supposed) objective morals, would not lead to it being less convincing.

I'm just saying there's nothing in that observation that should lead one to be "less conviced" that the truth exists.

There are many wrong answers to "What is 5+5?" In fact, there is an infinite number of wrong answers. That does not mean there's no right answer. It just means one has to do some thinking and discerning to locate it.

[Immanuel Can]

Up until relatively recently -in historic terms- society was far more rigidly structured, and everybody knew and accepted their place in it.

That's a very "English" thought.

I have found that England is like a rowboat full of survivors of a sunken ship. Everybody has "his place" in the boat, and if somebody stands up and tries to switch places, everybody else immediately pulls him back down and says, "Stay in your spot." They're not aware of it, but they still want to know, right from the get-go, what "level" you come from, and where you "fit in" relative to their hierarchical view of how society ought to work.

It's less like that now than it used to be, I have to say. But there's still as strong residue of that attitude. You won't find it in "the colonies." There, the openness of the landscape and the opportunities has made people believe anybody can move up in the world, and the switching of one's place for a better one is a sign of achievement, not upstartery.

Yes, England was once very structured. But then, it's an island, and one that has all its land enclosed since the 17th Century. It's a land of limited options and opportunities -- which is one of the main incentives that led people to sail over the Atlantic to "the colonies."

But what of that? The whole world is not English.

For hundreds of years the Church was the most powerful and influential social institution, and if the Church said something was morally wrong, it simply was morally wrong, and not open to debate. I daresay they considered Church morality to be objective truth.

Oh, everybody considers their morality to be "the objective truth." And that's nowhere more evident than among subjectivists, as you can see here. They are at great pains to convince everybody else of subjectivism, and it has great urgency for them.

And that, in itself, is a funny thing: you would think they would be happy for everybody to make his or her own "subjective" choice. But it's clear they're not. They do not want any objectivists of any kind in the crowd. And they certainly do not want anybody who would cast doubt on moral subjectivism. They continue to believe that being a moral subjectivist is, in some contested sense, "better" than being any kind of objectivist; and they contend strongly for the universal truth of their own moral view. You see that here, for sure.

But I think the real reasons are not hard to find. To be a subjectivist has at least two motivations. One might be a genuine confusion about which moral precepts to adopt as objective. Fair enough. But another might well be to avoid the sting of perhaps having run afoul of objective morality. There's something terribly soothing about the thought that there are no moral obligations but that whatever I want to do is "just fine." And a great number of people may find that soothingness a great incentive to cling tenaciously to subjectivism -- even making the "duty" to become a subjectivist an objective moral duty -- as when people say, "You have no right to tell me what to believe."

"Right"? But a subjectivist cannot believe in objective rights. So his rights cannot be offended. Only his subjective feelings can be "hurt." But it cannot be an objective moral duty for us not to "hurt" a subjectivists feelings, can it?

[Peter Holmes]

IC describes his team's god - one of the thousands invented by our ancestors - as 'the Source of all goodness' and 'the Author of all goodness, health, light, hope, joy, truth and peace'. (Giving common nouns, such as source, author - and god initial capitals is always impressive.)

Of course, IC's team has exactly the same actual evidence for the existence of its invented god as does any other team: none whatsoever. These are all made up stories to comfort miserable, highly evolved primates. So, as a runner for a source of moral objectivity, theism doesn't even make it to the starting post.

But even if IC's team's god did and does exist, and is exactly as the team describes it - the source and author of goodness, blah, blah - it would not follow that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent A, how ever defined.

And IC - a self-proclaimed advocate of logic - has no answer to the fact that, logically, non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. The most recent - and laughable - dodge was that theists don't have much time for non-moral premises in the first place.

[henry quirk]

But even if IC's team's god did and does exist, and is exactly as the team describes it - the source and author of goodness, blah, blah - it would not follow that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent A, how ever defined.

I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact.

You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy.

[Iwannaplato]

Is it a "threat" when one tells a smoker that he's going to give himself cancer? I suppose, in one sense, one might think it was. It's certainly a bad outcome. But it's not one you're imposing, but one the smoker is choosing. And in that sense, it's not a threat but a natural outcome.

Sure, except the parameters of existence have been made by God. What a tremendous lack of creativity if the only solution/outcome was eternal damnation. To use your analogy, it was well within his power to make cigarrettes non-carcinogenic.

And what is the natural state of affairs chosen by those who reject any relationship with the Author of all goodness, health, light, hope, joy, truth and peace? What can we call what they choose for themselves but "Hell"?

I know your version of Christianity is the not the mainstream one(s), but if yours also has eternal residence in Hell, there were some booboos in creation.

Should we tell people what they are choosing? Or would that be an arbitrary use of power, a threat? I would say not. I would say it's simply a warning to people that they are making a very important choice, and one the natural consequences of which are significant, to say the least.

When we warn people about cigarrettes, we did not make the cigarrettes. We did not make human nature such that we would desire them. We did not make the addictive tendencies in humans. We did not decide that bodies would be vulnerable to the horrible side effects of the desires we gave those bodies. We are fallible humans trying to protect other fallible humans from the consequences of their choices. God is not supposed to be fallible and did do those things. He can't just shrug and say 'hey I'm just warning you.'

The alternative is to let them stumble blindly on, possibly making a choice they have not fully thought through.

If that is the only possible alternative, this is a weak and uncreative deity. At best. At worst it is a demiurge and/or a misinterpretation by fallible humans. What they think God must be and do not notice the way their own long built in reactions are shaping what they manage to hear from God.

Their guilt and shame twist whatever is coming through to a message that has a lot of hate in it.

[Harbal]

Up until relatively recently -in historic terms- society was far more rigidly structured, and everybody knew and accepted their place in it.

That's a very "English" thought.

Not surprising that it comes from someone very English, then.

But what of that? The whole world is not English.

I would say that is pretty much how it was across Europe in General. The Catholic Church had a pretty firm grip on people's hearts and minds, and many of the subsequent variations of Protestantism were no less authoritarian and prescriptive. You didn't question the Church, because that was the same as questioning God.

Oh, everybody considers their morality to be "the objective truth." And that's nowhere more evident than among subjectivists, as you can see here. They are at great pains to convince everybody else of subjectivism, and it has great urgency for them.

No more so than the pains they are at to convince everybody else of their philosophical views on any other subject they may be involved in discussing. You, yourself, also go to great pains to convince everybody of moral objectivism, and with no less urgency, not to mention what quite often seems like desperation.

And that, in itself, is a funny thing: you would think they would be happy for everybody to make his or her own "subjective" choice.

It is not at all a funny thing; it is exactly what many on this forum do regardless of the topic under discussion.

To be a subjectivist has at least two motivations. One might be a genuine confusion about which moral precepts to adopt as objective. Fair enough. But another might well be to avoid the sting of perhaps having run afoul of objective morality. There's something terribly soothing about the thought that there are no moral obligations but that whatever I want to do is "just fine." And a great number of people may find that soothingness a great incentive to cling tenaciously to subjectivism -- even making the "duty" to become a subjectivist an objective moral duty -- as when people say, "You have no right to tell me what to believe."

That doesn't hold water. To be a moral objectivist still requires the subjective decision about which moral "truths" to adhere to, and I suspect that all too often they just happen to choose the "objective morals" that coincide with their own moral taste. Why can't you accept that moral subjectivism is an honest view arrived at through rational thought, even if you don't accept the soundness of the rationality? I think it a dirty trick to try and attach some kind of discreditable self interest to those who view moral values as being subjective.

"Right"? But a subjectivist cannot believe in objective rights. So his rights cannot be offended. Only his subjective feelings can be "hurt." But it cannot be an objective moral duty for us not to "hurt" a subjectivists feelings, can it?

I suppose it depends on the circumstances, and what you imagine to be imposing a duty on you.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it a "threat" when one tells a smoker that he's going to give himself cancer? I suppose, in one sense, one might think it was. It's certainly a bad outcome. But it's not one you're imposing, but one the smoker is choosing. And in that sense, it's not a threat but a natural outcome.

Sure, except the parameters of existence have been made by God. What a tremendous lack of creativity if the only solution/outcome was eternal damnation. To use your analogy, it was well within his power to make cigarrettes non-carcinogenic.

It's not even logically possible for the Source of all goodness, light and life to allow a choice about association with Him and with those values, without allowing the chooser to choose the opposite, as well.

God is not irrational. He does not do the incoherent and the self-contradictory. If we will not, at the end of the day, choose God, we shall have to choose His opposite. As C.S. Lewis so appropriately put it:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done. ' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell."

And what is the natural state of affairs chosen by those who reject any relationship with the Author of all goodness, health, light, hope, joy, truth and peace? What can we call what they choose for themselves but "Hell"?

I know your version of Christianity is the not the mainstream one(s),

Well, we'd have to decide what "mainstream" implied, wouldn't we? If you mean, "Your understanding of Christianity is not the one the larger proportion of historically-professing 'Christians' talk about," then you're quite right. But if you mean, "Yours is the wrong version," well, that depends on what God says about that, doesn't it?

Should we tell people what they are choosing? Or would that be an arbitrary use of power, a threat? I would say not. I would say it's simply a warning to people that they are making a very important choice, and one the natural consequences of which are significant, to say the least.

When we warn people about cigarrettes, we did not make the cigarrettes.

Human beings? Well, we did, of course.

But if you mean, "The warner did not personally work for Rothman's," you're probably right. Anybody working for Rothman's would tell the world that cigarettes were good.

We did not make human nature such that we would desire them.

No. And God did not make human beings such that they would desire evil. Instead, He only made them free. But freedom and individuality have entailments; and one of those logical entailments is the ability to choose the morally right and the ability to choose the morally wrong.

We did not make the addictive tendencies in humans.

Nor did God, originally. But what we have made of ourselves is not what He made us to be. That's the point of what we call "salvation."

We did not decide that bodies would be vulnerable to the horrible side effects of the desires we gave those bodies.

But again, choices have natural consequences. If one is determined to move away from the Source of health and rightness, one can move in only one direction.

We are fallible humans trying to protect other fallible humans from the consequences of their choices.

Maybe that's our problem: we're less committed to freedom than God is.

[God]can't just shrug and say 'hey I'm just warning you.'

Well, if you know the Christian message, then you know He didn't. Rather, He was aware of the wretched choice human beings were making, just as He is aware of all things. And so He made a way out -- at great cost to Himself -- so that human beings could make a better choice, if they were willing.

Seems fair. It respects human autonomy, but provides a better solution. Short of removing all freedom, what could God have done?

The alternative is to let them stumble blindly on, possibly making a choice they have not fully thought through.

If that is the only possible alternative, this is a weak and uncreative deity.

No, I did not mean that. Sorry...I didn't make that clear. It's not an alternative for Him. It's an alternative for those of us humans who know there's a better way: we can remain silent, or we can point out to others that their current choices are disastrous in natural consequence. And which is best to do? It seems clear to me.