That's why I expressed a practical aspect of "god" that can be expressed in a discussion of morality. Tree fairies are irrelevant in a discussion of morality--only gods that are authorities of moral values are relevant to a discussion of morality.
Well, ok then. Seems a bit circular to me, but if you promise to keep to that definition I can live with that terminology.
Once "god" is thus defined for the sake of a discussion of morality as the "authority of moral values" then "authority of moral value" is the complementary definition of a "god."
Thus, whatever is one's authority of moral values is one's "god."
Please notice how "one´s authority" (as opposed to "the authority") renders "God" just another "god".
What we would have to learn before we can meaningfully treat "God" as our "god" is: What is God´s god? IOW I think we could at least expect God´s moral framework to be
consistent and
intelligible - or else the assumption that God is god doesn´t help with anything.
I was corrected earlier that a more clear term is "objective" rather than "absolute." I would never argue that the morality of a god is "objective." Certainly it is subjective to that god.
Fair enough - but...I´m confused what we are discussing now: "objective" or "absolute"?
That's true of any moral framework. The purpose of any moral framework is to direct actions toward a desired ultimate "good end," but one never has enough information to know with absolute certainty that one's actions will lead to that good end.
I don´t disagree. However, while every other moral framework at least attempts to define what´s the ultimate "good end" and how a certain action is likely helping to achieve this (i.e. is indeed lacking
absolute certainty), the moral framework of "God is god, but we can´t know God´s ways" is leaving us in absolute
uncertainty.
I'm a theist who believes in an absolutely sovereign God, and since the Holocaust actually occurred, then my answer is that with such a God the Holocaust must have been necessary.
That´s remarkably consistent - but unless you are equating "necessary" with "morally good" I have no idea how that´s meant to be referring to the question at hand.
What makes consequences desirable or undesirable? IOW, what ultimate "good end" do you shape your actions to achieve? Maybe yours is different from mine. If so, then the actions we choose in any given situation will probably be different; if not different, the reasons we chose them--our actual moral judgments--certainly will be different.
Yes sure. And on top it decribes exactly what we observe. So what is your objection?
As for the question of basis, the question is a matter of comparison. Ken-1122 has asserted a basis that is centered on himself as his own moral authority. The problem is that basis is unique to him and cannot be shared, unless someone accepts Ken-1122 as their own moral authority...their god.
I´m not sure I understand how that follows. All that´s required for a shared basis is that someone else happens to have the same basis - no need for him to consider Ken a "god".
So the question relates to how common or sharable one's basis might be.
I am, however, not seeing how I necessarily need a
basis for giving my personal valuation. It seems to me that I need core goals or values, though. That´s not the same.
I stated: "...everyone acts is if absolute morality exists."
I´m sorry, but it would help me greatly if you could explain something to me:
In a previous post you pointed out how morality is never absolute but relative (e.g. a lie is not per se a bad thing - it depends on whom you lie to), and later you said you used the term "absolute" erroneously and actually meant "objective". But you still operate with this term. I´m not sure why that is and what you mean when saying "absolute" anymore.
Anyway: I know that you said "
everyone" - after all, this broadest possible generalization was what I took issue with.
I took a course a good number of years ago in which a young woman asserted on that Monday that no such thing as "absolute morality" (objective morality) existed.
Then that Wednesday, the same young woman asserted that preventing a woman from having an abortion was in all circumstances wrong.
We have Gadarene in this thread who has stated here and a number of other times a belief that genocide is in all circumstances wrong.
So you base your general statement about
everyone on two (or possibly a handful of) experiences?
Actually, I was expecting that you would try to substantiate your assertion by showing how one can impossibly avoid acting as though morality were objective, or something. Some anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient, in my book.
On another note, it would really be important for you to distinguish clearly between
objective and
absolute. They are two very distinct concepts. Switching back and forth between them and concluding from one on the other or even saying "absolute morality (objective morality)" is muddying the waters.
Thus, while Gardarene obviously holds (at least) one absolute moral stance (i.e. a stance that doesn´t allow for exceptions) this neither shows that he acts as though his entire morality is absolute, not does it allow for the conclusion that it´s an appeal to
objectivity.
I suspect that sooner or later, you'll reveal that you also have a moral value you believe holds firm in all circumstances. I could be wrong...but I doubt it.
Most definitely. However, that neither allows for the conclusion that I act as though (the entirety of my) morality were absolute nor that I act as though it were objective. All you can conclude is the obvious: That I have one value that I claim to hold firmly to - i.e. that my morality contains one single absolute value).
I did not state that absolute (objective) morality existed, I stated that everyone acts as though it does.
Let's imagine for a moment that absolute morality does not exist...but everyone acts as though it does.
Now let's imagine for a moment that absolute morality does exist...and everyone acts as though it does.
Same result.
Agreed. However, that doesn´t show that everyone acts as though absolute morality does exist, so far it only shows that we can´t distinguish between absolute morality exisiting and people merely acting as though it did.
It does not, however, show your preassumption to be accurate. For that you´d have to explain how a person would have to act in order to not act like absolute morality existed.
No, I did away with the concept that morality of the moral authority must be "absolute" (objective). I assert that the morality of the moral authority is necessarily subjective to the moral authority. If the morality of the moral authority were objective to the moral authority, the moral authority would not be the ultimate moral authority.
I´m still not understanding this. If even the morality of the alleged moral authority is subjective - where is there any space left for "objective morality" at all?
Not redefining--refining. "God" has only one use in a discussion of moralilty, and that is as an authority of morality. But if god = "authority of morality" then any "authority of morality" = god.
I don't have a previous definition of god in a discussion of morality. This is my only one.
Yes, we have discussed that above already. I´m still not happy with that terminology (mainly because it allows you to equivocate an allegedly external "authority" with an internally generated value by calling both "god"), but I have agreed to follow your loaded terminology, nonetheless. Doesn´t mean I am willing to follow you in ignoring differences that are crucial, from my pov.
But what if you detemined their morality was superior to your?
Or what if you determined that their desired "good end" was superior to yours?
RD, that´s loaded language. You are ignoring my actual position.
If, however, you are merely asking "What if someone can convince you that a subjective value you have previously regarded comparably unimportant deserves a higher position on your subjective priority chart?", then my answer is "I would adjust my subjective value system accordingly." Has happened before, and I´m sure will happen again. But the point is: he´d have to convince me. His mere appeal to the superiority or absoluteness or objectivity or authority of his ideas would leave me unimpressed.
That´s actually why I would replace your statement "Everybody acts as though morality were absolute" into "We´d be better off if everyone acted as though morality were subjective": This allows for meaningful comparisons and discussions about our values and core values.
Let's say your "good end" was to always get safely across city intersections. A "moral value" toward that good end might be to always cross when the light is green. Just that, nothing else. Green light = forge ahead in your moral code.
But then you meet someone who has the same "good end"--to always cross city intersections safely--whose moral code was "look both ways and go when there are no cars" with no regard to the status of the light. And what if his argument for doing so was the fact that sometimes cars run red lights--not to mention that some intersections don't have lights--but if you make sure there are no cars, then that is a better value than depending completely on the green light.
So you realize his moral value is a surer route to your own good end. Would you then adopt his moral value?
I don´t seem to understand why and how you distinguish between "value" and "good end". I wouldn´t have to adopt his value. As far as I can tell our values have been the same all the time: "get safely across the road/doing our best to stay alive".
What differs are our
strategies how to achieve this goal best (secure our values).
And to answer you question: Sure, if he can convince me that his strategy is more productive in regards to securing my value, I will adopt his strategy.
[I have no idea, though, how that relates in any way to the discussion of a God who doesn´t walk the way He talks and whose strategies you tell me have to be assumed to be beyond our understanding. Neither do I have any idea how it relates to objective morality and/or absolute morality.
And, while all these considerations are certainly interesting and worthwhile, I´d like to remind you where this conversation originated: I was pointing out the problem with a God who allegedly tells us that crossing a red light is immoral but OTOH allegedly has a track record of commanding people to cross a red light. Maybe you can - at some point - return to those objections of yours that are pertinent to this problem?]
Anyway, when it comes to values ("gods", in your terminology), it may turn out that the guy and I have different "god" charts. I might tell him "Your emphasis on safety is fine and dandy, but safety isn´t
my one and only "god". Personally, I am willing to - to a certain degree - compromise my desire/value for safety due to other desires/values (e.g. getting quickly where I want to get). Plus, if safety were my only "god" the strategy you propose would not be sufficiently safe. I guess I´d build a bridge any time I have to cross a road."
Now, in order to continue meaningfully, we would have to move from comparing our strategies to comparing our "gods".
What if the situation were reversed and you were the one with the "cross when no cars are present" theory presenting to to the "cross on the green light" person? Should he adopt your moral value then?
He either would adopt my
strategy or he wouldn´t. The only relevant question is: Can I convince him or can´t I. That´s all I can do. Mere appeals to superiority, objectivity, absoluteness, authority won´t do anything.
But I repeat: Usually the hard part is not to come to an agreement concerning the strategies, the hard part is to come to an agreement about the "gods" (values, goals, "good ends"). In my understanding, determining which strategy works best isn´t even a moral issue in the strict sense. It´s a technicality, and I have no problems admitting that - given we have sufficient information - there is an objectively correct answer to it.
Sorry, I thought it was clear I was not directing those questions personally at you when I said "for atheists" using the plural.
Well, a general statements about atheists must be assumed to be meant to include me personally, doesn´t it?
But I acknowledge now that you claim not to hold any moral values as absolute (objective).
Sorry, but you are shifting the goalposts. Your initial claim was that everyone
acts as though morality were absolute. Showing that someone holds to a certain value without exception is substantiating this.
By the same token I could claim that everyone acts as though morality were relative, and substantiate this claim by showing that they have one single relative value - which can easily be done.
Heck, since you guys are defending the idea that God might in certain cases even command genocide while at the same time asserting that He impossibibly can have commanded the Holocaust, I would - if your line of reasoning were valid - have shown that even God acts as though morality were relative.
But if I catch you asserting one, I get to call you on it...agreed?
Whatever you like. Please just realize that this isn´t going to help substantiating the claim in question, and that I never denied to have what you are about to "catch" me having, in the first place.
But just to get done away with the irrelevant things quickly: I am a die hard pacifist. Fire away.
