TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

If morality is "objective" then shouldn't it be just that the strong thrive and the weak do not.

Quite the opposite, in the Christian telling of things: the weak should be helped by the strong, and the strong will answer for their callousness, if they do not. In fact, that's one of the things Nietzsche, Marx, Spencer, Rand and others hated most about the Christian ethic: it raises the weak at the expense of the strong.

If morality is "subjective" then it depends upon the person in question whether or not justice is served.

It's worse than that. The "person in question," if weak, has no argument against the unrestricted power of the strong, and there's no accountability to the strong for doing injury to the weak. And in the secular telling of things, there's not even a tragedy to that...it's just "survival-of-the-fittest," the only rule there is.

And the strong have no argument against the weak if the tables turn either. What's the difference? I mean, Christianity may be the case, or it may not.

A huge difference.

If you are the weak, then God and morality are on your side, Christianly speaking. That won't prevent an evil person from abusing you, but it will prevent any neutral or positive moral agent from being callous and indifferent to your plight, and will impose upon all such a positive duty to extend not merely pity but actual help to the weak. No small thing, that. And when the evil person abuses you, then you can be sure that you will be recompensed -- and so will he -- if not at the present, then in the future, and that to the full measure of justice.

Either way, I'll stick up for a little guy if I see one being pushed around unfairly. A lot of people do, even people who aren't Christian.

Some do, some don't. Maybe you're one of those positive moral agents I was speaking of, and you can obey objective morality, at least in this regard, without even being under a duty to do so. But if so, you're not the only person alive. Not everybody can do the right thing without knowing for sure what the right thing to do is.

[Atla]

But so far there's no evidence for any kind of objective morality, as to my knowledge.

The way I conceive of this issue goes like this. I do believe that objective morality is real, and I do believe that it is defined philosophically and also religiously. But what •it• is composed of, the stuff of it, is of a metaphysical and supernatural matter. Is it part-and-parcel of the natural, biological world? No. Clearly not.

It enters our world through that strange process we term •revelation•. But no revelation (I assume) could ever be absolutely pure. What taints it? Man’s very self. Like an imperfect lens there will always be distortions. So, there are higher and there are lower revelations. One must winnow through that issue with care, seriousness and a great deal of dedicated thought.

An “objective morality” cannot ever be written down because it is there in an abstract sort of way. One could refer to Plato’s proofs as a way to understand this. You can do a great deal of intellectual work and construct a complex and complete edifice — I find much sound reasoning in Catholic social doctrine reasoning — but any edifice of ours can only be a reflection if the higher concepts — which are supernatural.

The issue is that though we can (smart, well-prepared and serious men can) sit down and expound the general outlines of moral objectivism, the implementation of any such idea-based system will always prove highly problematic because the world is chaotic and mutable, and man is situated within unstable, shifting structure that makes reasonable implementation difficult.

Additionally, so the Christians say, we exist in a fallen condition. They say Once we existed within Order; now we have fallen into Disorder. And we have the task of ordering it — the world — but with ourselves as the starting point.

Now obviously I presuppose the real existence of a God that can communicate with me. I know, it sounds wacky, and unlikely, but it has been proven to me (to my subjectivity) too many times to doubt. But I also am aware of God’s silence.

So I say that Objective Morality is a necessary thing that we arrive at through philosophical processes and those processes of faithfulness.

I am willing to concede that moral compromises often seem necessary and unavoidable, but the more focused and pointed is the intellect that focuses on the issue, the more necessary and obvious Objective Morals become. In that sense they are necessary and inevitable.

I do not think that I have proved their existence though.

Anyway, what I’ve written is how I conceive of the problem. And I am quite invested in Christian and Catholic categories, which I must state so there is no confusion.

The issue is that, for "skeptics" like me, that's just not good enough. I reject subjective evidence in general. I see it as just a standard psychological thing that whatever faith someone has, that person will receive subjective experiences consistent with that faith. For example someone in my family tried to raise me as a Christian when I was very little, so I had Christian experiences and visions (not all pleasant), I even heard the Christian God talk a few times.

So I look for objective evidence. There seems to be loads of objective evidence for example for the existence of the moral sense in most, but not all humans. So there's objective evidence that human morality is subjective.

And I've seen no objective evidence for some grand objective morality yet. Or for any supernatural influence entering our world.

[Harbal]

An excuse.

You were only asked for one thing. One. It could not be simpler for you, and still, you cannot do it.

QED.

And you have been repeatedly asked for a single objective moral rule.

Yep. The most modest and minimal request that could ever be made of something genuinely "moral." That's all. Just that. And still, you cannot do it. Point made.

I think the point he is making is that you can't do it, either, and I have to say I agree with him.

[Alexiev]

No, of course not. I'm saying you can't rip a passage out of context, then claim to understand what it means. We need to listen to what is said before and after, if we want to understand the mind of the speaker. And that's true for everything, not just for the Bible. It's a universal principle of text analysis.

That depends. It's not humble to imagine we can force God to speak. But it's the ultimate in hubris to imagine He cannot speak and make HImself understood to us. He is, after all, God. And you and I, mere human beings, still expect to speak and be heard, however imperfect our communication sometimes is...why would we think God to be less capable of it than we are?

Perhaps you should object to the out of context, bigoted, anti-Muslim quote-mining endemic on this site. I'm aware of the context in the passages I quoted. Who can know the mind of God remains an answerable question. And the answer is: "Nobody". Or, if anyone can come close, perhaps Saint Paul is a better candidate than you.

If God "makes Himself understood to (you)", then that understanding (if it is not shared) is subjective, not objective. It is filtered through your subjective understanding. This is obvious. Also, there's nothing wrong with this -- it just means your moral codes are subjective, like everyone else's.

[commonsense]

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

I agree. It's very sad.

But if the world is "survival-of-the-fittest," then the one who has the most effective attorney is the "most fit" in the context of court. And the right outcome is happening, because the "most fit" is obtaining the advantage. The "Law of Nature" ("red in tooth and claw," -- Tennyson) is being upheld.

If that's how it is, then your sadness and mine are merely self -erving delusions. No actual "injustice" is happening, not only because the fittest is surviving, but also because there's no such thing as "justice" to be had. So you and I had better just get over it, because the world of survival-of-the-fittest" does not owe us happiness, far less justice and fairness, nor does it care if we do not have it.

I am saddened because I know I am not the fittest.

[Alexiev]

I thought it a very good, useful and necessary video to watch. One outcome of the breakdown in the capacity to see and understand our own cultural traditions is that we become incapable of defending them. We also become incapable of defending ourselves and what has been entrusted to us by former generation.

I haven't watched the video. If the poster who linked it is any indication, it's filled with hateful bigoted propaganda. Also, I prefer reading to watching TV.

One cultural tradition worth defending is the tradition, enshrined in the Constitution of my country, of freedom of religion. The tradition (often ignored and abused) of liberal acceptance of different religions and races seems worth honoring, despite the bigoted opinions of some members here.

[Immanuel Can]

And you have been repeatedly asked for a single objective moral rule.

Yep. The most modest and minimal request that could ever be made of something genuinely "moral." That's all. Just that. And still, you cannot do it. Point made.

I think the point he is making is that you can't do it, either, and I have to say I agree with him.

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

Well, I guess we'll have to throw the ball back in your court, and ask what it is you would accept as proof of objective morality. I'm ready to try, if you can say what you'd ever accept...

[Harbal]

Yep. The most modest and minimal request that could ever be made of something genuinely "moral." That's all. Just that. And still, you cannot do it. Point made.

I think the point he is making is that you can't do it, either, and I have to say I agree with him.

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

I must have missed it. I don't suppose you would embark on it again, would you?

[Gary Childress]

Idiot. The video will give you the persepctive of a lad growing up surrounded by Islamists - IN LUTON ENGLAND.

Someone attempts to provide you with at LEAST information - and you reject to inform youself of its contents and instead spout presumptious insults.

Anyone of your ILK is not worth_Y of philosophy.

So is the video going to tell me that some immigrants are committing crimes like some people sometimes do? Perhaps with whatever degree of greater frequency than native born Brits? Is that something I don't know? I saw mention of government cover up. Sounds like their cover up didn't go unnoticed. I mean, there was some leader of the Irish Mafia who ended up manipulating some FBI agents years ago into unwittingly helping him run his crime ring. Fucking crazy shit. It got found out. Hopefully, the FBI has learned from it. It's not acceptable for anyone to do but not all Irishmen are Irishmen who run a crime ring. I don't go around worried about the Irish or even Italians. I had one guy approach some friends and I in a bar once upon a time saying he was a member of the Gambino family. I mean, we didn't say much. We basically put as much distance between us and him as we could. I have friends who are Italian also. that incident doesn't reflect on them as far as I'm concerned.

Again, what do you want me to do, panic over all the Muslims we have in our country? Get any more bent out of shape than I do when I see anyone else commit a horrendous crime? I hear you. You've said several times that Mohammed was a pedophile. I assume that may very well have been the case. Abraham apparently had sex with his daughters. Or his daughters had sex with him while he was asleep (I guess that makes it ok, I don't know, ask a Christian). I don't know what else to tell you.

What would you like me to say? What do you want me to post in response? "That's an interesting video?"

Y dont you fucking watch it - and THEN have an opinion - indeed then you'd have the right to SHARE an opinion

(OTHER_WISE - - > U R the dumbest **** on the forum - to continually SPOUT OFF about something you have not even permitted yourself an opportunity to actually form an opinion!!)

OK. I watched it. He seems like a very nice person. Authorities in his own country seem to have been extraordinarily unfair to him.

[Immanuel Can]

No, of course not. I'm saying you can't rip a passage out of context, then claim to understand what it means. We need to listen to what is said before and after, if we want to understand the mind of the speaker. And that's true for everything, not just for the Bible. It's a universal principle of text analysis.

That depends. It's not humble to imagine we can force God to speak. But it's the ultimate in hubris to imagine He cannot speak and make HImself understood to us. He is, after all, God. And you and I, mere human beings, still expect to speak and be heard, however imperfect our communication sometimes is...why would we think God to be less capable of it than we are?

Perhaps you should object to the out of context, bigoted, anti-Muslim quote-mining endemic on this site.

Well, the Koran...which I have here, on hand, and have read cover-to-cover, is composed of "suras" that have no context. They're like little "sayings," rather than a coherent narrative or extended argument. The Bible's books are not like that...they're extended narratives and arguments, which have context.

The reason that the suras have no context, you can discover from the imams. They will tell you, as I do now, that the Koran was composed after Mohammed's death, by his redactors and editors, who compiled every saying that every person who claimed to have heard Mohammed speak claimed he had said: then they organized them by length (which you can see from looking at the Koran itself) and by loose subject matter, and burned all the remaining scraps they had decided were "inauthentic". All this you can find on any Islamic scholarship site, in fact.

That being so, we should not expect any context for suras. Mohammed didn't organize them, nor are we even sure whether or not he said them. What we know is that his followers claimed he did, and they organized it by their own judgment.

Now, you can question that judgment, or you can say it was inspired. But what we cannot expect is context.

I'm aware of the context in the passages I quoted.

If that were true, you'd not have made the argument in the first place. Did you read the verses I pointed out to you? They're the context.

If God "makes Himself understood to (you)", then that understanding (if it is not shared) is subjective, not objective.

If God speaks, He's more than capable of making Himself clear...even to his fallible creatures. Do not think that God stutters.

[Gary Childress]

Yep. The most modest and minimal request that could ever be made of something genuinely "moral." That's all. Just that. And still, you cannot do it. Point made.

I think the point he is making is that you can't do it, either, and I have to say I agree with him.

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

Well, I guess we'll have to throw the ball back in your court, and ask what it is you would accept as proof of objective morality. I'm ready to try, if you can say what you'd ever accept...

I gave you an example situation a few posts back of a woman raped and impregnated by a psychopathic male. She decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with having his child. She'd rather get an abortion. According to your objective viewpoint, what ought she to do and what do you give as objective support to that conclusion? That might be a good start.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

I agree. It's very sad.

But if the world is "survival-of-the-fittest," then the one who has the most effective attorney is the "most fit" in the context of court. And the right outcome is happening, because the "most fit" is obtaining the advantage. The "Law of Nature" ("red in tooth and claw," -- Tennyson) is being upheld.

If that's how it is, then your sadness and mine are merely self -erving delusions. No actual "injustice" is happening, not only because the fittest is surviving, but also because there's no such thing as "justice" to be had. So you and I had better just get over it, because the world of survival-of-the-fittest" does not owe us happiness, far less justice and fairness, nor does it care if we do not have it.

I am saddened because I know I am not the fittest.

Then know this: if you are not the fittest, you were still loved and created by God. As His by right, you are owed justice. And if men do not give it to you, God will. I believe that. As it is written, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

But if there's no God, and no objective morality, then neither are you owed anything, and you can expect no settling of accounts ever. So cheer up. It's just how things are.

Now, if that strikes you as cold and unfeeling, then it strikes me that way, too. And I believe that morally cold people will answer for their folly, whether they recognize they will or not.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the point he is making is that you can't do it, either, and I have to say I agree with him.

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

Well, I guess we'll have to throw the ball back in your court, and ask what it is you would accept as proof of objective morality. I'm ready to try, if you can say what you'd ever accept...

I gave you an example situation a few posts back of a woman raped and impregnated by a psychopathic male. She decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with having his child. She'd rather get an abortion. According to your objective viewpoint, what ought she to do and what do you give as objective support to that conclusion? That might be a good start.

Well, that's just a repetition of your earlier post, without response to my query. Why avoid my caveat and question? The caveat goes to the motive of your question, and the ensuing question Is a perfectly fair request for clarification.

I'm being fair to you, and trying to understand your motive and your meaning. Why do you insist on not responding, then?

[Sculptor]

It really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — ...

And this is the moment you depart from Philosophy and retreat into a fantasy world of your own making.

It is true that to entertain or believe what I suggested will jettison me from a particular and perhaps dominant strain in modern philosophical thought.

Yeah. You could write a sequal to Lord of the RIngs or Wheel of Time. But I think you are on the wrong site. Are you a refugee from "I love Philosphy" by any chance?

[Harbal]

It's funny...I embark on a proof, and all you can say is that "I'm not doing it."

Well, I guess we'll have to throw the ball back in your court, and ask what it is you would accept as proof of objective morality. I'm ready to try, if you can say what you'd ever accept...

I gave you an example situation a few posts back of a woman raped and impregnated by a psychopathic male. She decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with having his child. She'd rather get an abortion. According to your objective viewpoint, what ought she to do and what do you give as objective support to that conclusion? That might be a good start.

Well, that's just a repetition of your earlier post, without response to my query. Why avoid my caveat and question? The caveat goes to the motive of your question, and the ensuing question Is a perfectly fair request for clarification.

I'm being fair to you, and trying to understand your motive and your meaning. Why do you insist on not responding, then?

I'm glad to see it isn't only my questions you avoid answering. I was beginning to think it was something personal.