Is there an absolute morality?

[durangodawood]

To a theist the term God is axiomatic. It's like asking "what if there were no universe, would you still think killing your neighbor is wrong?"...

I cannot see how those are similar. Lots and lots of people picture the world with no God. Even Christians change their view on whether there's God sometimes and end up believing differently. But who switches back and forth about whether theres a universe or not?

God may be axiomatic to Christian faith. But Christian faith is clearly not axiomatic to being human. I'm asking you as a human.

 

[childeye 2]

Lots and lots of people picture the world with no God.

See, now I would have said it's not that they picture the world with no God, they just have different images of god/God/gods/religions including, atheists' god/gods/superstition/religions. God is axiomatic in that the term God is to be considered as the source of the energy that formed us and everything that is reality.

There is no imagery added, that's just what it has to imply when we say it, or we're not reasoning on it correctly. It would be every single persons Maker, and God for everyone without prejudice, just like it's a universe for everyone without prejudice. It's when we apply God to a moral/immoral application of reality, then some imagery of what God or this universe determined to be seen as moral virtue is being experienced and witnessed to in both it's presence and absence.

Even Christians change their view on whether there's God sometimes and end up believing differently. But who switches back and forth about whether theres a universe or not?

Exactly.

God may be axiomatic to Christian faith. But Christian faith is clearly not axiomatic to being human. I'm asking you as a human.

I am answering as a human. I know there is a universe and so do you, so let's simply leave any imagery of God out of it. We share the same reality because we're here communicating. This is what I witness in my experience and all my senses.

The ways of the world are corrupt and corrosive through the self-fulfilling hypocritical subjective negative prejudice of cynicism, that each person is only out for themselves. This means there is an objective morality/immorality, otherwise I couldn't say that.

Would you still think stealing or killing your neighbor is wrong?

Yes, and it's objectively wrong no matter what I believe or anyone else believes.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This all reminds me of Penn Jillette's quote:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. *snipped for CF sensibilities*

Source: Penn Jillette quote #1921445
​

 

[childeye 2]

This all reminds me of Penn Jillette's quote:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. *snipped for CF sensibilities*

Source: Penn Jillette quote #1921445
​

I really wanted to give this a like. I've met some of whom this author characterizes as religious people. They do misrepresent God in this way.

The problem is that when the author says, "Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you, he's conflating god with religion. And that misrepresents what God means too. Good post though, appropriate.

 

[stevevw]

Do you understand why any form of this statement: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false?

I understand "Humes law". But I was talkng about the moral system of non-realism. Its a logical conclusion that if a moral system doesn't have some basis for being moral then it only leads to there being no way to determine right from wrong behaviour.

You can say that there are no moral facts but in reality there are moral facts because we live like there are moral facts. Under non-realism we would have to say that the way we actually live like moral realims is true is some sort of error or delusion. But people don't actually think its a delusion or error. They actualy think its real.

We live like morality is real because we have good reason because we cannot live without moral realism being true. Moral truths are necessary for us to live and enagge with each other as humans.

 

[Kylie]

Actually scientists believe they had found the objective facts each time they make a new discovery. They thought the universe was static as an objective fact. They thought the Big Bang was an explosion of some sort as a fact. They thought the Big Bang was a expansion as a fact. Now even the currect theory which is regarded as fact is being questioned.

Science just has an educuated guess based on observations. But the observations and understanding is always limited to the equipment and knowledge. Plus it is limited in what it investigates (physical stuff) so they can never know all the facts. Look at Dark Matter and Energy.

Scientific theories seem to have an expiry date. The history of science, it is claimed, is at odds with scientific realism’s epistemic optimism. It is full of theories which were shown to be false and abandoned, despite their empirical successes. Hence, it is claimed, realists cannot be warranted optimistic about the (approximate) truth of currently empirically successful theories.
Realism and Theory Change in Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Which just goes to show that we shouldn't accept something as an objective fact unless there is clear and repeatable evidence that it is so - evidence that withstands rtesting, and evidence that can be expressed in a clear and precise way. So far this has not been done with morality.

Actually when it comes to cosmology, physics, and evolution the explainations are becoming increasingly complicated and unclear. So many add on are required to keep the idea within current assumptions that its becoming more complicated to the point scientists begin to doubt the theory.

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
The field relies on a conceptual framework that has trouble accounting for new observations
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

And are any of those things being presented as indisputable fact?

The CMBR was only one example of what scienctists think is evdience for the BIG Bang model. But as mentioned the Big Bang has many problems so it cannot be considered objective fact. But in the meantime they think they have found the objective facts only for them to be proven wrong again and again.

Is that claim an opinion?

That wasn't my aim. I was first trying to show that there are non-physical truths/facts in the first place before any attempt to show they are actaully real. Its only taken near on a 1,000 pages to achieve this.

I don't recall anyone every disputing that.

I already have many times ie "Rape is wrong" and "it is wrong even if someone claims it not subjectively". Thats pretty clear language. Moral langauge is different to other areas like descriptive language as its normative. But its still pretty clear what it is saying.

No, that isn't what I mean. Sure, you can say that rape is wrong, but that means nothing. One can claim, "The death penalty for murder is morally correct," and someone else can claim, "The death penalty for morder is morally incoprrect" with just as much authority as your claim about rape. I've made it very clear what kind of language I am after, and I've even given examples. And what you have provided doesn't meet the standards I am after.

Moral language cannot be reduced to logic. It is different. The language itself has truth value. A statement like "Rape is wrong" requires an objective determination of it being either right or wrong. Its evaluative and making a judgement. That is different to descriptive statements like in science for which logic is more an appropriate tool.

Again with the special pleading.

Obviously when I say there is a colour Red that this is omething humans really believe that "there is such things as colours like there are the balls that use those colours. We see the green colour of grass and the Blue sky and believe they are like physical states. But they are not, they are abstract concepts that don't exist. Yet because they really exists as abstracts that influence reality they are regarded as abstract facts. So there are facts/truth about the world that are not physical.

Yeah, that's not what you said. You literally said colours were real, then you said they were not real. Your scramble to justifty it now is not convincing.

OK then you are acknowledging that we don't subjectively choose morality because "Consensus of choice" alone doesnt make morality normative. It has to have some basis and the agreed morality is based on protecting people and society. Thats an objective basis.

So? I have never argued that. I have even repeatedly said that there are things like rape that objectively cause harm. But that's not the same thing as morality, since two different people can have completely different responses to the same situation, and thus you can't say that the morality of the situation is the same for both people.

Otherwise if its just "Consensus"alone then any sub-culture or forigne culture who has different morals even if immoral to us have equal moral values (though different) and cannot be wrong. Its just their relative view and should be tolerated.

And as long as it doesn't involve people against their will, why not?

Therefore we would have to say if another culture just happened to agree on killing old people to save resources or treating women like 2nd class citizens that we would have to say they have to say that is just their relative view and each culture has a right to their own moral truths and therefore we should tolerate these immoral acts. That to me makes no sense.

I'm fairly sure I've spoken about situations where people are forced into something against their will. So why do you bring up situations that require that you ignore what I've already said?

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand "Humes law". But I was talkng about the moral system of non-realism. Its a logical conclusion that if a moral system doesn't have some basis for being moral then it only leads to there being no way to determine right from wrong behaviour.

You can say that there are no moral facts but in reality there are moral facts because we live like there are moral facts. Under non-realism we would have to say that the way we actually live like moral realims is true is some sort of error or delusion. But people don't actually think its a delusion or error. They actualy think its real.

We live like morality is real because we have good reason because we cannot live without moral realism being true. Moral truths are necessary for us to live and enagge with each other as humans.

That's not what I asked. Do you understand why any form of the statement: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false? Yes or no. That's it.

 

[stevevw]

That's not what I asked. Do you understand why any form of the statement: "If moral non-realism is true, then people should..." is always false? Yes or no. That's it.

Well I just answered it "Humes Law".

 

[stevevw]

By my own views.

I dont need an objective basis (and as that is impossible thats a good thing).

Seriously, at least try to study this.

But thats not a basis for morality. Thats just your personal opinion which holds no weight in the real world moral sitiations. Moral statements are different to subjective statements that only reflect the psychological state of the person expressing the moral statement. It doesn't have any normative power.

If you and I were debating why the behaviour of someone is wrong and you said ïn my opinion or my view its OK to do" I would say "so what thats just your opinion and means nothing about whether it really is OK to do". The conversation would eventually move to both of us giving some sort of basis for why it is wrong. Every discussion about morality inevitably ends up appealing to some basis outside the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Which just goes to show that we shouldn't accept something as an objective fact unless there is clear and repeatable evidence that it is so - evidence that withstands rtesting, and evidence that can be expressed in a clear and precise way. So far this has not been done with morality.

First under the science method things are accepted as objective without clear evdience or having a clear and precise way to explain it. The Big Bang is an example.

Second as I have demonstrated objective morality is clear and precise. "Rape is wrong" is a clear moral statement. It states that "rape" is either right or wrong to do. Its a clear and precise choise. Even if we applied the way some of the so called objective facts of science are accepted then moral statements like this are far more clear and precise say compared to the "Big Bang theory".

And are any of those things being presented as indisputable fact?

Well from what you are saying then yes. They are presented as facts. I am not sure what you mean by "indisputable fact". A fact is a fact so a "Fact" is regarded as indisputable.

Is that claim an opinion?

No its actually "Science". The disputes about the so called fact of the Big Bang is scientifically based so therefore its a "fact" that the so called fact of the Big Bang are under dispute and theerfore the Big Bang is not really a fact after all. The same with evolution. The so called claim that evolution is a fact is being disputed by science and not personal opinion.

I don't recall anyone every disputing that.

Maybe it was your insistence of proving objective morality by the science method that gave me that impression. That you were a materialist and that there were no non-material facts/truth.

OK so you acknowledge that there can be non-material facts/truths. If thats the case then you cannot just dismiss objective morality because it doesn't fit methological naturalism. Therefore you need to be open to other ways of deetrmining truth/facts about reality.

No, that isn't what I mean. Sure, you can say that rape is wrong, but that means nothing. One can claim, "The death penalty for murder is morally correct," and someone else can claim, "The death penalty for morder is morally incoprrect" with just as much authority as your claim about rape. I've made it very clear what kind of language I am after, and I've even given examples. And what you have provided doesn't meet the standards I am after.

You have misunderstood moral language then. Its the fact that moral language demands an objective answer that destinguishes it from other descriptive statements. Your example demands an objective answer "the death penalty"is either right or wrong to do and each option is an objective determination. There is no room for relative/subjective views. Either one side is right and one side is wrong.

That is why I said that relative morality is impossible to impliment as a system. Because if we follow it through to its logical conclusion then there are no longer a "right or wrong" moral position to take but rather it opens the door for there to be many truths about human behaviour. That undermines being able to take a position that an act is either "right or wrong". We have to accept that there is no objective deetrmination and all views are equally relevant within that system.

The moment one culture claims that an act is wrong not only for themselves but for other cultures as has been happening then that culture is claiming that there is only an objective determination to be made and that is the determination they have made. All other cultures are wrong. Yet the culture that is said to be wrong will also claim that their moral view is right not just for them but for all cultures.

We end up with a messy and complicated system and no way of really claiming that an act is really right or wrong in a universal or truthful way in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well I just answered it "Humes Law".

No. Hume's Law explains why there are no moral facts. That isn't part of the question. Let's take this slow.

If moral non-realism is true, then there are no moral statements that are true. Is this true or false?

 

[stevevw]

Again with the special pleading.

Its not special pleading because its a fact. It is well known and accepted that moral language is different to other statements about the world. Moral statements are proscriptive while other statements about the world or self are descriptive. So it cannot be reduced to logic as descriptive language like in science is logically based whereas moral language being proscriptive is normative.

A description is just what you think it is: It describes a situation or what a philosopher might call a state of affairs. A normative statement is a claim about how things ought to be.
Distinguishing Between Descriptive Versus Normative Statements | Howe Writing Across the Curriculum Programs - Miami University

Yeah, that's not what you said. You literally said colours were real, then you said they were not real. Your scramble to justifty it now is not convincing.

So you want to base your arguement om me being inconsistent and not what I am actually saying. That is just a logical fallacy.

Regardless now I am making my position clear. That is we treat colours like they are real and they influence reality and yet there is no such thing as a colour in any physical sense. I have shown you the science for this. Besides you have already acknowledged that there are non-physical realities that can be facts/truths so this is one of those examples.

So? I have never argued that. I have even repeatedly said that there are things like rape that objectively cause harm. But that's not the same thing as morality, since two different people can have completely different responses to the same situation, and thus you can't say that the morality of the situation is the same for both people.

That seems a very weak arguement. Your more or less saying that the only reason there are no objective morals is because we disagree. Thats another logical fallacy which doesn't follow.

But heres the real point. We can say that anyone who disagrees "That rape is wrong" and claims "rape is OK to do" is objectively wrong. Is there any way we can say that "rape is good morally" I don't think so. Can we say that those who think "rape is OK to do" are just mistaken and objectively wrong, Yes of course. Do we accept that raping people is OK, no of course not. So there you have it we can declare "Rape is wrong" objectively.

If you disagree then you will have to rationalise why "rape is OK to do". Because when it comes to morality which matters to us we want to be able to stand on solid ground and declare that some acts are objectively wrong to do. There is only two positions either its right or its wrong and there is no room for relative/subjective views.

And as long as it doesn't involve people against their will, why not?

See how you slipped the objective basis in by saying "as long as it doesn't involve people against their will". Why would it matter if another culture is forcing people against their will to do things. From their relative moral position they think its OK. You cannot impose your morals on them because you don't live in their culture.

So you have to accept that their different relative view though immoral to your culture is just a different view and not really wrong in any way outside cultures..

With that logic we could say any culture that makes rape, genocide, and other bad treatments of humans is only following the culture they were conditioned to. To them it may bring benefits, even though we cannot understand that.

But the moment we bring in some basis like the bad actions of other cultures hurts humans to justifiy why we can say that the culture is wrong we introduce an objective basis ie (it hurts humans). We cannot avoid appealing to some basis to justify why we think something is wrong. Feeling or preferring it as wrong doesn't work, as its not normative.

 

[stevevw]

No. Hume's Law explains why there are no moral facts. That isn't part of the question. Let's take this slow.

If moral non-realism is true, then there are no moral statements that are true. Is this true or false?

Yes thats correct. They are not true either by error (we have made an error in our thinking) or by delusion (we deluded ourselves into thinking moral statements are true).

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes thats correct.

Good, on to step 2.

"People should..." is a moral statement.

The ... is there so that you can fill in whatever you want. "People should love one another" "People should not murder". For whatever act you put in place of the ... that statement is a moral statement. True or false?

 

[VirOptimus]

But thats not a basis for morality. Thats just your personal opinion which holds no weight in the real world moral sitiations. Moral statements are different to subjective statements that only reflect the psychological state of the person expressing the moral statement. It doesn't have any normative power.

If you and I were debating why the behaviour of someone is wrong and you said ïn my opinion or my view its OK to do" I would say "so what thats just your opinion and means nothing about whether it really is OK to do". The conversation would eventually move to both of us giving some sort of basis for why it is wrong. Every discussion about morality inevitably ends up appealing to some basis outside the subject.

Yes, morality is debated.

This strongly suggests thats its not objective.

 

[stevevw]

Good, on to step 2.

"People should..." is a moral statement.

The ... is there so that you can fill in whatever you want. "People should love one another" "People should not murder". For whatever act you put in place of the ... that statement is a moral statement. True or false?

True

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, now put it all together:

If moral non-realism is true, then there are no moral statements that are true.

Yes thats correct.

"People should..." is a moral statement.

True

If moral non-realism is true, then any statement of the form "People should..." is not true. This conclusion is also correct. Agreed?

 

[durangodawood]

See, now I would have said it's not that they picture the world with no God, they just have different images of god/God/gods/religions including, atheists' god/gods/superstition/religions. God is axiomatic in that the term God is to be considered as the source of the energy that formed us and everything that is reality.

There is no imagery added, that's just what it has to imply when we say it, or we're not reasoning on it correctly. It would be every single persons Maker, and God for everyone without prejudice, just like it's a universe for everyone without prejudice. It's when we apply God to a moral/immoral application of reality, then some imagery of what God or this universe determined to be seen as moral virtue is being experienced and witnessed to in both it's presence and absence.


Exactly.


I am answering as a human. I know there is a universe and so do you, so let's simply leave any imagery of God out of it. We share the same reality because we're here communicating. This is what I witness in my experience and all my senses.

The ways of the world are corrupt and corrosive through the self-fulfilling hypocritical subjective negative prejudice of cynicism, that each person is only out for themselves. This means there is an objective morality/immorality, otherwise I couldn't say that.


Yes, and it's objectively wrong no matter what I believe or anyone else believes.

It seems like youre degrading the idea of God pretty severely if its just whatever anybody believes in.

 

[childeye 2]

It seems like youre degrading the idea of God pretty severely if its just whatever anybody believes in.

Exactly. I am denouncing the idea that God is an idea, just as I am denouncing that the universe which we all share is an idea. I'm embracing the order of energy in that the universe formed me and I didn't form the universe.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, I am denouncing the idea that God is an idea just as I am denouncing that the universe which we all share is my idea.

It seems youve done the opposite. You claimed God is whatever thing that any person thinks is most real. That there is just indeterminate fluff and the furthest thing from the God of the Bible.