A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[Paprika]

The part I've bolded is not being argued so far as I can tell. The shorthand is probably close, but you have to take into account his #2. It's not caused by operating under the assumption that it exists, but by operating under the assumption that you have it right as to what that moral system allows/disallows.

The bolded is a direct quotation.

Really, the way he's putting it is rather confusing , and what I've done in my various posts here are to counter the different plausible interpretations of what he is saying. But as I've said earlier, he needs to subtantially restate his position.

[NormATive]

Right, so it shouldn't be counted as an objection against objective morality, which I gather rwatts is implicitly trying to do.

No, what is at question is whether or not you or I can know objective morality. I think it is rwatts' contention that we would be better off if some didn't assume that they know what objective morality was. Not so much whether or not it exists. What difference would that make anyway if we can't possibly know objective morality?

NORM

[NormATive]

The bolded is a direct quotation.

Really, the way he's putting it is rather confusing , and what I've done in my various posts here are to counter the different plausible interpretations of what he is saying. But as I've said earlier, he needs to subtantially restate his position.

His #2 in the OP does that pretty clearly. What do you not understand about it? Do you agree or not?

NORM

[Paprika]

I hope you do realise that this

whether or not you or I can know objective morality.

and this

rwatts' contention that we would be better off if some didn't assume that they know what objective morality was.

and this

Not so much whether or not it exists.

are three distinct questions?

The first was not what he questioned in his post #1, but in post #10. As for the second, I've countered with "what do you mean by harm?" Against the third see my post #24.

[Paprika]

His #2 in the OP does that pretty clearly. What do you not understand about it? Do you agree or not?

NORM

He's not being very clear. Which of the three questions (see my post directly above) is he asking, or is it all at the same time?

[Carrikature]

The bolded is a direct quotation.

Really, the way he's putting it is rather confusing , and what I've done in my various posts here are to counter the different plausible interpretations of what he is saying. But as I've said earlier, he needs to subtantially restate his position.

You took it out of context. The full line is:

It's at point 2) that the concept of objective morality either does good or does harm, because it's what the person perceives about God that is key here.

Underlining mine.

[rwatts]

As Teal said, 2) has nothing to do with the existence about objective morality, but how someone noetically approaches it. You'll need to substantially restate your problem.

Well humans do claim that it does or does not exist. I have yet to meet a non human that makes the claim.

What would you do if I claimed to have a source of objective morality that did not match the source you claim. Would you believe me, or label my claim as something due to human fallibility?

If I have objective morality, then what about my claim to have it? Is that objective, and true? If you don't think so, then why do you dismiss it?

[rwatts]

No, what is at question is whether or not you or I can know objective morality. I think it is rwatts' contention that we would be better off if some didn't assume that they know what objective morality was. Not so much whether or not it exists. What difference would that make anyway if we can't possibly know objective morality?

NORM

Yes.

It's like God. It's like any ultimate claim we make. I don't think we can really, truly know. It's something that's really beyond our ken. It's like "What exists beyond the universe?" Like "What came before the Big Bang?".

Far better if me made our points and arguments but did not claim any ultimate source of truth for them. Or if we are going to do that, then be very circumspect about it. I've met people who claim guidance by an infallible source of truth, tell lies or write silly things about what other people think and say.

How can that be?

[rwatts]

I hope you do realise that this
and this

and this

are three distinct questions?

The first was not what he questioned in his post #1, but in post #10. As for the second, I've countered with "what do you mean by harm?" Against the third see my post #24.

Human beings are always the ones making the claim for objective morality.

Humans are fallible.

What they claim is objectively, morally true, is always their opinion. I've had folk claim the most intimate relationships with what they claim is the true source of morality, yet they say silly things, write mistaken things, and in a few cases, lie. And they do these things seemingly without conscience.

Clearly they, and/or their source cannot be trusted.

If they cannot be trusted, what makes you think that you and/or your source necessarily can be trusted?

[Carrikature]

Yes.

It's like God. It's like any ultimate claim we make. I don't think we can really, truly know. It's something that's really beyond our ken. It's like "What exists beyond the universe?" Like "What came before the Big Bang?".

Far better if me made our points and arguments but did not claim any ultimate source of truth for them. Or if we are going to do that, then be very circumspect about it. I've met people who claim guidance by an infallible source of truth, tell lies or write silly things about what other people think and say.

How can that be?

I find this to be an excellent description of how things actually work:

Source: Daoism (SEP)

We can only answer normative questions from within dao, not from the perspective of nature or any other authority. The point is that ‘authority’ is a normative concept within some dao so any appeal presupposes a dao of following it. Thus Zhuangzi's first step does not warrant treating all discourse dao as right or as wrong—or even as equal. We make normative or evaluative judgments only against the background of a presupposed way of justifying and interpreting them. The judgments depend on some discourse dao.

© Copyright Original Source

[Paprika]

Well humans do claim that it does or does not exist. I have yet to meet a non human that makes the claim.

What would you do if I claimed to have a source of objective morality that did not match the source you claim. Would you believe me, or label my claim as something due to human fallibility?

If I have objective morality, then what about my claim to have it? Is that objective, and true? If you don't think so, then why do you dismiss it?

You seem to assume that because someone believes that there is an objective morality, that he must also believe that he knows completely and fully what is good and bad. I don't.

[Paprika]

If they cannot be trusted, what makes you think that you and/or your source necessarily can be trusted?

I don't think that me or my source can necessarily be trusted. Which isn't to say that I don't put some level of trust in it.

It really isn't an either/or of absolute trust vs no trust at all. Okay, many Christians may operate this way, but I don't.

[rwatts]

I don't think that me or my source can necessarily be trusted. Which isn't to say that I don't put some level of trust in it.

It really isn't an either/or of absolute trust vs no trust at all. Okay, many Christians may operate this way, but I don't.

I'll grant you that. It's a healthy and good attitude to take.

As I wrote to NormATive, it allows for discussion, judgement, evaluation and decision making.

[rwatts]

I find this to be an excellent description of how things actually work:

Source: Daoism (SEP)

We can only answer normative questions from within dao, not from the perspective of nature or any other authority. The point is that ‘authority’ is a normative concept within some dao so any appeal presupposes a dao of following it. Thus Zhuangzi's first step does not warrant treating all discourse dao as right or as wrong—or even as equal. We make normative or evaluative judgments only against the background of a presupposed way of justifying and interpreting them. The judgments depend on some discourse dao.

© Copyright Original Source

I think that makes sense. I need to think about it. But it's correct in the sense that no matter what we do, think, or say, we bring "the background of a presupposed way of justifying and interpreting ".

No matter who we are, and what claims we make, we cannot escape that.

What started this thread off, is that I get an impression that some folk try to get around this. It's never been convincing, because as much as any fallible human can claim some access to infallible, objective knowledge (moral or otherwise), then surely we all can?

If he can do it, then why can't I?

[rwatts]

He's not being very clear.

That's possible. :)

However, some folk understand, I think. Nevertheless, your last post to me is a reasonable one and I don't have any real objection to what you wrote, for the reasons I gave in my reply.

I do think that when folk use that kind of language they need to be careful. I have spent a lot of time over the last few years on another forum where many folk seem to think it obvious that because they have the God given truth, then their assertions are automatically objectively true, correct, and in some way, sanctioned by God. Hence the behave as if said assertions should be accepted on face value.

Those same folk, given this impeccable knowledge and guidance, also manage to write the silliest of things and things that are demonstrably false. And so they cannot be trusted. It also undermines any claim for their source as being trustworthy.

Naturally, if they cannot be trusted in their claims for absolute truth, then why should any human claim be trusted in that way?

That's my problem with it.

Naturally, folk will believe in an objective standard e.g. God. I know many who do. And they are mature and sensible in how they handle that concept. But my goodness, I've met plenty of dingbats too, and they are not mature in how they handle the idea. It's a club to beat people with.