TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

If God does not exist objective morality may still have a basis other than God.

I'd actually like to see somebody do that. People talk about it, but they never demonstrate it.

Take any precept you like. Let's say...a permission to do something we'd all concede is "good," such as, say:

• Saving a child's life.
  Giving to charity.
  Feeding the hungry.
  Telling the truth.

Or, let's take a prohibition of some kind, one we'd all likely agree with, such as:

• No slavery.
  No murder.
  No genocide.
  No rape.

Show that any such permission or prohibition really can have a basis other than God. I'm keen to see how you'd get that done.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have laid a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

But if morality is real, then it has to be based in something. There has to be some reason or cause for the evaluative terms, some grounds to assert that they are necessary, relevant or applicable to a given case. Subjectivism has no such grounds. But Objectivism does.

[seeds]

_______

This thread, which is supposed to be about Donald J. Trump, has morphed into a brazen display of hypocrisy and irony, for it has been hijacked by a proponent of "objective morality," of all things, who, himself, is a staunch supporter of Trump, who just so happens to be one of the most immoral minds ever to infest a stinking and bloated sack of farting flesh.

Man-o-man, Bizarro World is weird.
_______

[Gary Childress]

Nietzsche had an answer for that one, too. Yes, it can be useful for other people to feel bound to conventional morality, because it keeps the strong from eating the weak. But if you are among the strong, the ubermenschen, then you should be more courageous than that, he thought. You should be able to see through all the twaddle about "being moral," and be able to choose when you will appear to act in ways that others think are moral, and when you will depart from that in your own interest. And that, he said, is what a real person who disbelieved in "Judeo-Christian" morality should do.

In any case, which "subjective" morality should a society follow? Since all are subjective, there's no answer. It could be the "morality" of a Nazi, an Islamist or a South Sea cannibal. Why not? They all "hold their societies together." Nazism was very unifying, in fact. Prior to it, the German Republic was all over the map, politically and socially. Nazism solidified their society and directed it toward very purposeful ends indeed. But who in their right mind would want unity on those terms?

So "morality holds society together" is actually a really terrible argument.

If you insist, then I guess there's nothing I can say to rationally convince you otherwise. We'll have to disagree in that case.

Well, if you use good reasons, then I'll change my mind. But I haven't seen any good reasons to believe that if something "holds society together," that automatically makes it good, and I've seen many clear cases to the contrary. Islamic society is "held together" by fanatical Sharia. North Korea is "held together" by tyrannical Communist dictatorship. Hutu society was once bonded by genocidal rage against Tutsis. In none of those cases would you probably say they're "moral," right? Who could?

I don't really care if you change your mind or not. I suspect you're not going to go on a murder spree any time soon, (not that you'd last 10 minutes in a fight with a real psychopath probably).

We both obey our moral urges and inhibitions. It's an unfortunate fact of life that no one has yet come up with definitive answers as to what morality is and what makes something moral. Socrates didn't have an answer and neither did Plato (at least none that following philosophers have accepted as logically sound). I mean, if you want to trash morality, knock yourself out. I have a feeling you'll regret doing so, but you do you.

[Sculptor]

_______

This thread, which is supposed to be about Donald J. Trump, has morphed into a brazen display of hypocrisy and irony, for it has been hijacked by a proponent of "objective morality," of all things, who, himself, is a staunch supporter of Trump, who just so happens to be one of the most immoral minds ever to infest a stinking and bloated sack of farting flesh.

Man-o-man, Bizarro World is weird.
_______

Meanwhile Trump has offered his own version of objective morality in a rally today.
In it he praises Hannibal Lecter as the "late great man".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0OWcvaG_Y

[Flannel Jesus]

[commonsense]

If God does not exist objective morality may still have a basis other than God.

I'd actually like to see somebody do that. People talk about it, but they never demonstrate it.

Take any precept you like. Let's say...a permission to do something we'd all concede is "good," such as, say:

• Saving a child's life.
  Giving to charity.
  Feeding the hungry.
  Telling the truth.

Or, let's take a prohibition of some kind, one we'd all likely agree with, such as:

• No slavery.
  No murder.
  No genocide.
  No rape.

Show that any such permission or prohibition really can have a basis other than God. I'm keen to see how you'd get that done.

Whatever has an even number of letters will be considered to be moral. Whatever has an odd number of letters will be considered to be immoral. Numbers will be considered amoral.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.

But if morality is real, then it has to be based in something. There has to be some reason or cause for the evaluative terms, some grounds to assert that they are necessary, relevant or applicable to a given case. Subjectivism has no such grounds. But Objectivism does.

Morality isn’t necessary.

[commonsense]

If God does not exist objective morality may still have a basis other than God.

I'd actually like to see somebody do that. People talk about it, but they never demonstrate it.

Take any precept you like. Let's say...a permission to do something we'd all concede is "good," such as, say:

• Saving a child's life.
  Giving to charity.
  Feeding the hungry.
  Telling the truth.

Or, let's take a prohibition of some kind, one we'd all likely agree with, such as:

• No slavery.
  No murder.
  No genocide.
  No rape.

Show that any such permission or prohibition really can have a basis other than God. I'm keen to see how you'd get that done.

Whatever has an even number of letters will be considered to be moral. Whatever has an odd number of letters will be considered to be immoral. Numbers will be considered amoral.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.

But if morality is real, then it has to be based in something. There has to be some reason or cause for the evaluative terms, some grounds to assert that they are necessary, relevant or applicable to a given case. Subjectivism has no such grounds. But Objectivism does.

Morality isn’t necessary.

[Walker]

Morality isn’t necessary.

Crime and Punishment refutes that quip.

It's about the effects of bucking inherent morality.

[Walker]

Looks fake.

But, gullibility so needs to believe that fake is real, doesn't it.

[Walker]

- Crime and Punishment, published 1866.

influenced

- The Genealogy of Morality, published 1887.
(morals is specific)

- Good topic for a HS term paper.

[Walker]

All these Inherently Immoral acts against Trump are creating karma, which perpetuates more of the same. And folks wonder why there is no world peace.

[Flannel Jesus]

Looks fake.

But, gullibility so needs to believe that fake is real, doesn't it.

Just Google "trump salutes north Korea". You can write about how it looks fake, or you can just go check if it's fake. Perhaps it's actually your need to believe it's fake that's the problem, and not my need to believe it's real.

[Walker]

In your eagerness to believe, you forget where you are.

This is a philosophy forum.

To be appropriate to a philosophy forum, you need to say what the picture means, which requires taking the next step past a mere description of physical actions, on your stroll down Philosophy Lane.

[Flannel Jesus]

Nice cop out lmao. You implied I was foolish for believing it, but now that it's clear that you were being foolish, you found some clever way to cop out.

Own your foolishness.

[Harbal]

No God, no morality. If you think otherwise, just show what I asked you to show: that you can justify one moral precept. Just one. Any one, with no reference to objectivity.

We know that everybody has subjective moral opinions, so the only question is, is there any other kind of morality; one that is based on objective moral truth. I don't see how there could be such a thing as objective moral truth, and I'm pretty sure you don't have an argument that would make me change my mind.