Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

Right and they would assess their ethical framework against yours, and come to a different conclusion. Neither position being logically more correct the the other

And once again, you've affirmed that subjective morality is not universal/eternal/absolute. You still haven't SAID anything. You've just repeated a definition. Are you beginning to see it now...?

Wait, you are the one who said he had not seen evidence for universal values, I assumed that you would have some idea what that evidence would look like. And I'm not sure what arguments fail - God and His moral law exist. What is illogical about that?

That's correct. I have not seen any compelling evidence/argument that 1) morality MUST be universal/absolute/eternal, or 2) that such a code actually exists.

The arguments I have heard so far for 1) tend to be of the sort you have articulated thus far; they are tautological, based on flawed analogies, or simply arguments from outrage/incredulity/ridicule. I have no idea what a successful argument MIGHT be because I have never heard/encountered one that works, or been able to conceive of one. So 1) appears to be unprovable, at least so far. As for 2), even the existence of a god (if it could be shown to be actual) does not prove such a code exists, but I have not found compelling evidence that any of the gods proposed by the various religions actually exists. I tend to look at the evidence as it presents itself and assess it for "compelling" or "not compelling." I don't really ask the question, "what would the evidence need to look like to convince me." I've not seen a reason for that question.

I realize you believe your god exists, and your personal experiences lead you to that belief. You have shared some of them. I respect that you have found such things compelling and you are entitled to the belief you have. I have not found it compelling, so I cannot adopt your beliefs on the basis of your experiences. The Christian god, as conventionally proposed, just doesn't fit.

[seer]

And once again, you've affirmed that subjective morality is not universal/eternal/absolute. You still haven't SAID anything. You've just repeated a definition. Are you beginning to see it now...?

Of course I have, that if you are correct there are and never can be logically or universally correct moral answers. Most people don't live like that, nor can they. That is why philosophy is largely moving away from subjective morality towards moral realism.

That's correct. I have not seen any compelling evidence/argument that 1) morality MUST be universal/absolute/eternal, or 2) that such a code actually exists.

The arguments I have heard so far for 1) tend to be of the sort you have articulated thus far; they are tautological, based on flawed analogies, or simply arguments from outrage/incredulity/ridicule. I have no idea what a successful argument MIGHT be because I have never heard/encountered one that works, or been able to conceive of one. So 1) appears to be unprovable, at least so far. As for 2), even the existence of a god (if it could be shown to be actual) does not prove such a code exists, but I have not found compelling evidence that any of the gods proposed by the various religions actually exists. I tend to look at the evidence as it presents itself and assess it for "compelling" or "not compelling." I don't really ask the question, "what would the evidence need to look like to convince me." I've not seen a reason for that question.

I realize you believe your god exists, and your personal experiences lead you to that belief. You have shared some of them. I respect that you have found such things compelling and you are entitled to the belief you have. I have not found it compelling, so I cannot adopt your beliefs on the basis of your experiences. The Christian god, as conventionally proposed, just doesn't fit.

But that is the problem Carp, if you really have no idea what to look for then how can you say you haven't seen it? And I'm not saying that universal values must exist, right now I'm just asking if the concept of God existing and being the source of universal values is illogical or not.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I have, that if you are correct there are and never can be logically or universally correct moral answers. Most people don't live like that, nor can they. That is why philosophy is largely moving away from subjective morality towards moral realism.

Actually, "most people" DO live exactly the way that I described. But "most people" are still religious, so "most people" still cling to the apparent fiction of universal/absolute/eternal morality. When "most people" can make a coherent argument for it, I will probably join "most people." Until then, I'd rather have my beliefs align with how I actually live.

But that is the problem Carp, if you really have no idea what to look for then how can you say you haven't seen it? And I'm not saying that universal values must exist, right now I'm just asking if the concept of God existing and being the source of universal values is illogical or not.

So you are shifting the argument to the existence of god? That is a matter of belief, Seer. I can no more to you "prove" that a god does not exist than you can "prove" that a god exists. There are some definitions of "god" that are logically inconsistent. There are some that are not. A being that is logically inconsistent cannot exist, so if you propose a definition of god that is logically inconsistent, I can prove to you it does not exist by identifying the logical inconsistentcy. But a being that is logically consistent does not necessarily exist, so proving it is logically consistent does not prove existence.

Both of us base our beliefs on a body of acquired evidence. If your god exists, then (based on what I know of the Christian definition of "god") this god is sentient and has a moral framework that is based on what this god values. You refer to it as this god's "nature." That god's framework would be no more binding on me that Trump's or yours. If our frameworks differ, then this god has the same options for resolving the distinction that you and I do: convince, isolate/separate, or contend. It still does not prove an absolute/eternal/universal moral framework. The framework may be eternal, assuming this god is eternal, but it is no more universal or absolute than mine.

But the point is somewhat moot. My experience and body of evidence tells me there is no such being, just as yours tells you there is. One or both of us is definitely wrong. We each, of course, think it is the other.

[Tassman]

God and His moral law exist. What is illogical about that?

There is no substantiated evidence to support such a claim. Furthermore, all religions make the same claim and there can be no way to resolve conflicts about "moral law" when members of competing religions or sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

[Charles]

Wait, you are the one who said he had not seen evidence for universal values, I assumed that you would have some idea what that evidence would look like. And I'm not sure what arguments fail - God and His moral law exist. What is illogical about that?

You admit that you cannot prove that God exists, so at best you may think you know that God and his moral law exists, but you have got no proof. And even if God did exist you have come nowhere in order to prove that his ideas about ethics would be right and that we should feel morally obliged to follow.

[seer]

Actually, "most people" DO live exactly the way that I described. But "most people" are still religious, so "most people" still cling to the apparent fiction of universal/absolute/eternal morality. When "most people" can make a coherent argument for it, I will probably join "most people." Until then, I'd rather have my beliefs align with how I actually live.

Well I would like to see you demonstrate that universal moral values are a fiction.

So you are shifting the argument to the existence of god? That is a matter of belief, Seer. I can no more to you "prove" that a god does not exist than you can "prove" that a god exists. There are some definitions of "god" that are logically inconsistent. There are some that are not. A being that is logically inconsistent cannot exist, so if you propose a definition of god that is logically inconsistent, I can prove to you it does not exist by identifying the logical inconsistentcy. But a being that is logically consistent does not necessarily exist, so proving it is logically consistent does not prove existence.

That is not what I'm asking, I'm not posing a particular view of God. I'm just asking if the concept of God existing and being the source of universal values is illogical or not.

The framework may be eternal, assuming this god is eternal, but it is no more universal or absolute than mine.

Of course it would be, God's law would be binding in all places at all times, whether you follow that law or not. Your position is that moral law is relative - these are not the same thing.

But the point is somewhat moot. My experience and body of evidence tells me there is no such being, just as yours tells you there is. One or both of us is definitely wrong. We each, of course, think it is the other.

Yet there is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal yet I suspect that you believe it is...

[seer]

There is no substantiated evidence to support such a claim. Furthermore, all religions make the same claim and there can be no way to resolve conflicts about "moral law" when members of competing religions or sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

Define evidence in a non-arbitrary way Tass.

[carpedm9587]

Well I would like to see you demonstrate that universal moral values are a fiction.

The burdern of proof is not on the person making the claim - or not making the claim. The burden of proof is on the person who wants their position to convince. If I want to convince you there is only subjective morality, then I would have to set out to prove it. If you want to convince me that there is a universal/absolute/eternal moral framework, then you'll have to furnish the evidence. What you believe about morality is not my concern, Seer, so I accept no burden of proof to convince you. I am satisfied with what the evidence I have gathered tells me. I'm happy to share that evidence with you if you are in the process of exploring, but whether or not you accept it is your concern, not mine. I do not accept the challenge to make this demonstration. It sounds too much like a challenge to prove to you that what I believe is right. I don't feel a need to do that.

That is not what I'm asking, I'm not posing a particular view of God. I'm just asking if the concept of God existing and being the source of universal values is illogical or not.

That is two questions; you can tell by the "and" conjunction. The second is dependent on the first. I have answered both. If the god you propose is logically inconsistent, then it cannot exist. If it is logically consistent, it may not exist (unless you can argue that this god is "necessary," and I have never seen such arguments actually work). If it does exist, as you yourself have said (ironically, in your OP), morality is subjective. So this being would have a moral framework, just as I do. If this god is eternal, this moral code is eternal. If this god's moral code never changes, then it is absolute. (yes, I know I said before that it wasn't, but I spoke without thinking it through thoroughly). Although we've never discussed this, I believe all of our moral codes are "universal" in one sense: each of us measures all sentient action anywhere in the universe in the light of our own moral code - so it has a degree of universality to it. But if "universal" means "binding on all people," I do not see how this follows. So if this god exists, it is possible, and logically consistent, that it has an absolute and eternal moral code. It is universal in the same way that all of our moral codes are universal.

Of course it would be, God's law would be binding in all places at all times, whether you follow that law or not. Your position is that moral law is relative - these are not the same thing.

You'll have to make the case for why this god's moral code is any more or less binding than mine. That moral code, as with mine, governs how this god (presumably) functions, and how it believes others should function. So does mine. I don't see a difference. I'd also be curious how you define "relative" differently from "subjective." You OP suggests you DO see morality as subjective (despite the pages and pages fighting against that very position).

Yet there is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal yet I suspect that you believe it is...

I have no such belief, and it's not clear to me what your point is with this statement. You appear to be suggesting that it is OK to hold something as true without any supporting evidence? I would disagree with that proposal.

[Charles]

Define evidence in a non-arbitrary way Tass.

Playing the "define"-game, seer. Perhaps you should focus on what he says. You know how to define evidence, and you don't need Tassman to define it. You are just trying to aviod answering his real points.

[carpedm9587]

Define evidence in a non-arbitrary way Tass.

I know this was not addressed to me, but it bears on our discussion. What does this question even mean? What are you trying to achieve with it?

Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

I have no idea if this meets your criteria for "non-arbitrary."

[Charles]

I know this was not addressed to me, but it bears on our discussion. What does this question even mean? What are you trying to achieve with it?

Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

I have no idea if this meets your criteria for "non-arbitrary."

Like I said this is seer trying to escape Tassman's point. There is not more to it than that.

[seer]

The burdern of proof is not on the person making the claim - or not making the claim. The burden of proof is on the person who wants their position to convince. If I want to convince you there is only subjective morality, then I would have to set out to prove it. If you want to convince me that there is a universal/absolute/eternal moral framework, then you'll have to furnish the evidence. What you believe about morality is not my concern, Seer, so I accept no burden of proof to convince you. I am satisfied with what the evidence I have gathered tells me. I'm happy to share that evidence with you if you are in the process of exploring, but whether or not you accept it is your concern, not mine. I do not accept the challenge to make this demonstration. It sounds too much like a challenge to prove to you that what I believe is right. I don't feel a need to do that.

What? You said universal values were a fiction. That is you making the claim.

If it does exist, as you yourself have said (ironically, in your OP), morality is subjective. So this being would have a moral framework, just as I do. If this god is eternal, this moral code is eternal. If this god's moral code never changes, then it is absolute. (yes, I know I said before that it wasn't, but I spoke without thinking it through thoroughly).

Good so we agree that God being the source of universal values would not be illogical.

But if "universal" means "binding on all people," I do not see how this follows. So if this god exists, it is possible, and logically consistent, that it has an absolute and eternal moral code. It is universal in the same way that all of our moral codes are universal.

It would be binding on all people simply due the fact that God can universally enforce it. Just in the sense that a nation's laws are binding on the population, so we put the rapist in jail.

You'll have to make the case for why this god's moral code is any more or less binding than mine. That moral code, as with mine, governs how this god (presumably) functions, and how it believes others should function. So does mine. I don't see a difference. I'd also be curious how you define "relative" differently from "subjective." You OP suggests you DO see morality as subjective (despite the pages and pages fighting against that very position).

Except being a finite creature with limited knowledge it would be unlikely that you understand all the variables concerning any ethical question. In other words, in a large part, you are making these judgements in the dark. Never mind the fact that our moral natures are fickle - yours and mine. Subjected to all manner incorrect influences. And yes, God's law is subjective to Him but objective humankind, universal and binding.

I have no such belief, and it's not clear to me what your point is with this statement. You appear to be suggesting that it is OK to hold something as true without any supporting evidence? I would disagree with that proposal.

It seems to me we have two choices - eternal mind or eternal energy. I assume you hold to one of them. BTW - I had my whole Church pray for your salvation this morning Carp...

[carpedm9587]

What? You said universal values were a fiction. That is you making the claim.

I said I never heard an argument for them that worked, and all arguments against subjective morality devolve to tautologies, flawed analogies, or arguments from outrage/incredulity/ridicule. I also noted there is at least one way in which moral codes are universal: we each assess all action (universally) by our own moral code. I also noted there are several values that are extremely widely held because of our shared experience/context as humans.

Good so we agree that God being the source of universal values would not be illogical.

No - that is not what I said. See above.

It would be binding on all people simply due the fact that God can universally enforce it. Just in the sense that a nation's laws are binding on the population, so we put the rapist in jail.

You are using "binding" in a difference sense than I. Yes, the strongest person/group/country gets to enforce their moral code on others (that's the "contend" part.). If your god exists, as the most powerful, their moral code is binding in this sense. Recall I said "might does not make right," just makes enforcement. Hitler could also jail/kill others who did not align with his moral code. That doesn't make his code "right." It just makes him the most powerful.

I have been using the term binding as in "this is the only valid moral code and all others are invalid if they do not align." (i.e., everyone OUGHT to have this moral code). It is not binding in this sense.

Except being a finite creature with limited knowledge it would be unlikely that you understand all the variables concerning any ethical question. In other words, in a large part, you are making these judgements in the dark. Never mind the fact that our moral natures are fickle - yours and mine. Subjected to all manner incorrect influences. And yes, God's law is subjective to Him but objective humankind, universal and binding.

Each sentient being derives their moral code on the basis of available information. If they differ, the "convince" part of resolution involved information exchange and discussion. If the information is not provided, the moral code won't change. It would seem to me incumbent on this god to provide the missing information in a clear fashion, again, assuming they exist.

It seems to me we have two choices - eternal mind or eternal energy. I assume you hold to one of them.

No. I do not know those are the only two options, so I don't hold to either of them. When it comes to the origins of the universe, I am fine with "I don't know" until (and if) I do.

BTW - I had my whole Church pray for your salvation this morning Carp...

That is kind, Seer. Please tell them thank you.

[Tassman]

Define evidence in a non-arbitrary way Tass.

Certainly, as per Carp: “Evidence: 1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid” – Oxford Dictionary.

IOW: You are making a claim regarding an alleged deity and the moral code attributed to him, without providing any facts or information indicating whether such a belief or proposition is true or valid”.. Why should I believe you?

Furthermore, you’ve not addressed how you can resolve conflicts about God's moral law when members of competing religions, denominations or sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

[seer]

I said I never heard an argument for them that worked, and all arguments against subjective morality devolve to tautologies, flawed analogies, or arguments from outrage/incredulity/ridicule. I also noted there is at least one way in which moral codes are universal: we each assess all action (universally) by our own moral code. I also noted there are several values that are extremely widely held because of our shared experience/context as humans.

OK, but that does not mean they are fiction, its just that you personally have not found a convincing argument...

You are using "binding" in a difference sense than I. Yes, the strongest person/group/country gets to enforce their moral code on others (that's the "contend" part.). If your god exists, as the most powerful, their moral code is binding in this sense. Recall I said "might does not make right," just makes enforcement. Hitler could also jail/kill others who did not align with his moral code. That doesn't make his code "right." It just makes him the most powerful.

I have been using the term binding as in "this is the only valid moral code and all others are invalid if they do not align." (i.e., everyone OUGHT to have this moral code). It is not binding in this sense.

Well might may not make right but it certainly defines and enforces right. God as the supremely good, all knowing Creator claims the right to order society as He only, knows best.

Each sentient being derives their moral code on the basis of available information. If they differ, the "convince" part of resolution involved information exchange and discussion. If the information is not provided, the moral code won't change. It would seem to me incumbent on this god to provide the missing information in a clear fashion, again, assuming they exist.

Well as a Christian I see that most of the New Testament ethical teachings are pretty clear, along with our better moral intuitions. But my point remains, our limited knowledge prevents us from understanding the long term consequences of both our good acts and bad.

No. I do not know those are the only two options, so I don't hold to either of them. When it comes to the origins of the universe, I am fine with "I don't know" until (and if) I do.

Ok, so you claim ignorance, that is fine.

That is kind, Seer. Please tell them thank you.

I had to use your screen name, but no worries, God knows who you are? ; )