Is morality objective, even without God?

[Jerry N.]

So you've said many times... but you still haven't made any attempt to explain how or why it's true with God.



... and seemingly knowable to no one.

durangodawood asked for a statement from people who participated in this thread. I gave mine.

 

[partinobodycular]

durangodawood asked for a statement from people who participated in this thread. I gave mine.

And I asked you to defend that statement... it's a forum... that's kind of what we do.

 

[Jerry N.]

And I asked you to defend that statement... it's a forum... that's kind of what we do.

Maybe I misunderstood what durangodawood was asking for. It seems that the discussion needed some closure, so I added my closing statement. As durangodawood wrote, anyone can add what they want.

 

[durangodawood]

I guess I spoke too soon - 28 pages in.

I thought this would have been plenty of time for you all to figure it out.

 

[partinobodycular]

Maybe I misunderstood what durangodawood was asking for. It seems that the discussion needed some closure, so I added my closing statement. As durangodawood wrote, anyone can add what they want.

I agree, that the discussion may be in need of some closure. In fact @durangodawood's obviously facetious post seemed like just the right point.

I guess not.

 

[partinobodycular]

I thought this would have been plenty of time for you all to figure it out.

I think that we're really, really close. Just another 1000 pages or so.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree, that the discussion may be in need of some closure. In fact @durangodawood's obviously facetious post seemed like just the right point.

I guess not.

Ive learned that this topic is DOA because people dont agree on whats meant by "objective morality" right off the bat.

Then theres 30 pages of (mostly) arguing at cross purposes.

It sort of blows my mind that people call divinely decreed morality "objective". Its like the opposite of objective - even if true. Its an origin story of morality that by definition is faith based and not demonstrable.

 

[partinobodycular]

It sort of blows my mind that people call divinely decreed morality "objective". Its like the opposite of objective - even if true.

Exactly, if you need someone... even God Himself, to decree something to be moral, then it ain't objectively moral.

That says absolutely nothing about whether God exists, or even whether morality exists. It just says that morality is something subjective, to which others may or may not accede.

That being said, I'm still open to the possibility that someone could define God in such a way as to make morality objective. Unfortunately the popular Christian concept of God makes that impossible.

But if they're willing to reconsider their concept of God, then I'm willing to reconsider their arguments for objective morality.

Alas, I sincerely doubt that that's ever gonna happen. And oddly enough, that may be more of an objective truth than morality is... i.e, independent conscious agents will always find grounds for disagreement.

 

[Bradskii]

? The ball is still in your court and remains there until you answer the simple question.

I'll repeat it as you don't seem to understand the human act: Why did you tell your "partner" (aka wife), that she was subject to you? Hint: See post#318 ... "Give me the moral act that your contemplating specifying the moral end(s) you foresee".

You really are reluctant to offer your views on morality when asked directly.

Is it a moral position to hold that the wife should be subject to the husband. Of course. The act is treating her in that way. The end is that she is subject to her husband. Do you think I should proceed with this act?

 

[partinobodycular]

Is it a moral position to hold that the wife should be subject to the husband. Of course. The act is treating her in that way. The end is that she is subject to her husband. Do you think I should proceed with this act?

Since @o_mlly seems to be incapable of answering this question, I'll answer it for him. o_mlly believes that it's perfectly moral for the wife to be subject to her husband. What he's hoping for is for you to delineate the exact forms that this subjugation will take. I.E, will you simply make marital decisions for you and your wife, or will this subjugation include abusing your wife?

Of course, such details are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's moral for the wife to be subject to the husband, o_mlly just doesn't want to answer that question.

 

[Bradskii]

Ive learned that this topic is DOA because people dont agree on whats meant by "objective morality" right off the bat.

Indeed. Take 'Do not kill'. Straight off the bat you will have people telling you it's not 'do not kill'. It's 'do not murder'. Which is a legal term. So you can take a life if it is legally allowed. And someone, at some point, at some time has to decide whether it's legal or not. Which will change over time, from country to country and even state to state. So the command should be 'Do not kill (unless the local statutes consider it lawful at the time of the act. Please refer to a legal representative in your jurisdiction for further details).

I guess there wasn't enough room on the tablet.

 

[Neogaia777]

Jumping in here to see what youve all decided. Youve had ample time to arrive at some proper conclusions.

So, can non theist morality be objective?

What do we mean by morality being objective?

Anyone is free to answer, since you all should be in agreement by this point.

I think the word "objective" when it comes to morality means neutral or just or fair judgement in all and every single case or in all circumstances or beliefs. To cover all cases this way means that it probably all has to be written down or fully spelled out 100%, 100% accurately in writing. Which could be a lot, or would be a very, very long book, or writing, to cover all and every single case, or every single exception to the normal rules in any or all cases, etc, 100% fairly and accurately and truly justly, etc. It is my belief that most exceptions to the normal rules would be in the minority, and that there are some rules that could work most of the time for the majority, etc, and that those could be short, or simple, but not at all short or simple with all that would need to be considered/taken into account to bring true justice to the minority, etc. But in this I am talking about the difference between those who are considered guilty, and those who might be considered 100% innocent, or would get off scott free, etc.

Because even with the guilty, then there still also probably needs to be consequences in a matter of degrees, and even in the majority of cases in which one might be considered guilty, that would mean considering most or all of the circumstances, which would add even a lot more words to the written down rules or writing in addition to how already long or big that book would be in describing every single individual case in which someone would or will be considered completely innocent of the crime, or would get off scott free for the crime, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Since @o_mlly seems to be incapable of answering this question, I'll answer it for him. o_mlly believes that it's perfectly moral for the wife to be subject to her husband. What he's hoping for is for you to delineate the exact forms that this subjugation will take. I.E, will you simply make marital decisions for you and your wife, or will this subjugation include abusing your wife?

There are occasions when taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the Signs

'Coercive control. It’s a form of domestic violence that can be hard to put your finger on – and that’s exactly what makes it so dangerous.⁠ It often starts with something small; your partner asking you to stay home instead of going out with your friends, because they’ll “miss you too much” when you’re gone or dismissing your legitimate concerns because you’re being “over-sensitive”.​

These minor red flags can soon snowball into a pattern of psychological abuse – controlling your finances; tracking where you go and who you see; isolating you from your friends, family and colleagues; calling you worthless and unlovable.⁠
From July 2024, coercive control will become a criminal offence in NSW, and it’s important we all understand the signs so we can recognise it in our own relationships and in those of the people close to us.⁠'

My daughter played a small part in highlighting the problem at the beginning of the year. Being a proud dad I was going to detail some of the things she did...but it's too easy to Google family names from the details, so...

 

[partinobodycular]

Quite often, taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the Signs

Sorry, I got @o_mlly this far... the rest is up to him. Methinks that you're in for another round of evasion.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think the word "objective" when it comes to morality means neutral or just or fair judgement in all and every single case or in all circumstances or beliefs. To cover all cases this way means that it probably all has to be written down or fully spelled out 100%, 100% accurately in writing. Which could be a lot, or would be a very, very long book, or writing, to cover all and every single case, or every single exception to the normal rules in any or all cases, etc, 100% fairly and accurately and truly justly, etc. It is my belief that most exceptions to the normal rules would be in the minority, and that there are some rules that could work most of the time for the majority, etc, and that those could be short, or simple, but not at all short or simple with all that would need to be considered/taken into account to bring true justice to the minority, etc. But in his I am talking about the difference between those who are considered guilty, and those who might be considered 100% innocent, etc.

Because even with the guilty, then there still also probably needs to be consequences in a matter of degrees, and even in the majority of cases in which one might be considered guilty, that would mean considering most or all of the circumstances, which would add even a lot more words to the written down rules or writing in addition to how already long or big that book would be in describing every single individual case in which someone would or will be considered completely innocent of the crime, etc.

God Bless.

IOW's, true justice or judgment needs to include all of the when, where, what, how, and why's of all and everything always, etc, and when/what/how/where, etc, one should draw a line, etc. And only an always all-knowing God, or God-like being, who always has always/always does know "all" and everything always, etc, can decide/calculate/do all of this 100% truly accurately always, or 100% fairly or 100% truly justly always, etc. I don't think the world could handle or contain trying to write it all down or out in all it's full details fully, or in it's full/whole entirety fully, etc.

God Bless.

 

[o_mlly]

Is it a moral position to hold that the wife should be subject to the husband. Of course. ... There are occasions when taking control of marital decisions can be a form of abuse: What Is Coercive Control and How to Recognise the Signs

It is also a moral position to hold that the husband should love and cherish his wife. Such a disposition precludes any and all use of violence.

Since @o_mlly seems to be incapable of answering this question, I'll answer it for him. o_mlly believes that it's perfectly moral for the wife to be subject to her husband. What he's hoping for is for you to delineate the exact forms that this subjugation will take. I.E, will you simply make marital decisions for you and your wife, or will this subjugation include abusing your wife?

Did Bradski lend you his mind reading headgear? If so, apparently you forgot to plug it in.

Also apparently, you don't understand the difference between "submit" and "subjugate". In context with this thread (lately hijacked to incorporate another thread), the former is the willing act of the one who submits, the latter is subjugator's use of force on the one who will not submit. Good but feeble try though.

The obvious answer to your thread's question is, "No".

 

[o_mlly]

You really are reluctant to offer your views on morality when asked directly.

Projecting again? Well, that's strike three and you're out.

It's extremely difficult but not impossible to teach calculus to one who is still trying to work out his multiplication tables. It's impossible if the one who hasn't the foundation also refuses to learn.

 

[Bradskii]

It is also a moral position to hold that the husband should love and cherish his wife. Such a disposition precludes any and all use of violence.

I didn't mention violence. I'm still waiting to hear if she should be subject to me. How long is this going to take?

Maybe I should mention that we married in Cairo. I didn't end up paying the dowry (E£50 - which I thought was something of a bargain), but I don't think that matters. But to give you heads start on the legality of the matter, from here: The State of Marriage in Egypt

'Men can also insist on including certain conditions in the marriage contract such as denying a woman her right to education and employment.'

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't mention violence.

Coercion. Look it up.

But to give you heads start on the legality of the matter ...

Even if an Imam presided at your wedding, it still wouldn't matter .... you're still an atheist, right?

I'm still waiting to hear if she should be subject to me.

? You reported that you told her she was subject to you. It was your morality story but what you would not tell us is why you felt a need to tell her so. Why not? I think I know why but I tried in vain to get you to tell us. But now it's too late; no more strikes left. Game over. The OP got my answer, nothing more to add. So long.

 

[Bradskii]

Coercion. Look it up.

In this matter it often doesn't involve violence, which makes it harder to detect. I do know something about this subject.

Even if an Imam presided at your wedding, it still wouldn't matter .... you're still an atheist, right?

It was a civil wedding.

? You reported that you told her she was subject to you.

And I want to know what you think the moral position might be. Seems like you're not keen on telling us. I can't see the point in holding to a moral position if you're not prepared to back it up. But you be you...