Objective Morality Without God

[Koldo]

You asked the question, I answered, now you say it's irrelevent. That's fine with me.

Stomata

Do Plants Breathe? | Wisconsin Pollinators.


Tada! Hierarchy!

All that's needed for my argument is to establish that a hierachy exists. Might does not equal right, that's something else entirely.

Is it the case then that you think of hierarchy on terms of who has more destructive power towards the others?

Ummmm "forced to obey" and "doesn't have a choice" are exactly the same thing.

Not quite...
All inanimate objects in the world don't have a choice. But they can't be forced to obey because obeying requires a conscious mind choosing to act, on this case choosing to act in a way that is contrary to what it would want to do otherwise. It's for this reason we don't label rocks as slaves...

Agreed.

Bingo! If the hierarchy exists, and the law establishes that hierarchy, then the law is a parallel of the truth. Perfect! So what is it precisely that you disagree with? Maybe it's time to talk about truth as an objective morality since we've reached an agreement?

If truth is objectively moral, then an ACCURATE representation is moral, an AUTHENTIC representation is moral. Inaccurate and disingenuous would be immoral. Still, there is no reason to dispute the logic of my proposal.

Well, not really. The analogical representation supports the argument but isn't required.

Divine hierarchy exists >>> divine law establishes the hierarchy >>> divine law is moral because the hierarchy is true. Done.

Ready to discuss how truth is objectively moral?

I am saying that any hierarchy on our world wouldn't accurately represent the divine hierarchy and therefore entail the existence of falsehood, if we are to define truth and falsehood in terms of what mirrors accurately the divine.

 

[Augustus]

Depends on what you mean by "aware", since God himself wouldn't necessarily be experiencing the vision, but sure.

He would be creating it, so it can't only be in the human's mind.

You are mixing up what is contingent with what is personal and subjective.
It happens to be the case that water under certain conditions freezes. It could be the case, at least in principle, that water would freeze under different conditions. This is not personal and subjective. It might arbitrarily chosen to work on this specific way, but it is not personal and subjective.

If the standards God 'decides' on for when water freezes are objective then the standards God 'decides' upon for what is morally right are objective.

What do you mean by 'remove the distinction between the abstract and physical so as it would be impossible to conceptualise the difference'? Do you mean that God could make it so the abstract and the concrete no longer exists as distinct properties, or do you mean God could make me unable to distinguish between and the concrete, or do you mean God could destroy every concrete thing and leave only abstract concepts remaining?

If the first, that would entail creating a married bachelor.

He could make people unable to conceptualise the difference something being physical or abstract.

He is omnipotent, he can remove a couple of concepts that only exist linguistically.

 

[Koldo]

I think the other reply to this point misses a better counter-argument. I am just arguing here for the sake of the thought experiment, so bear with me a bit.

It is an assumption of naturalism that we are able to approximate reality through measurement. God's existence, in many instances, would necessarily violate naturalism. As such, there's no reason why we should think that a property God assigns to the universe would be something that we could measure.

It might help you to contextualize this if I point out that this web forum is a virtual stand-in for a physical forum. Users here might be given warnings by the staff, but there's no way for you to tell what their warning level is. It's a piece of data that's divorced from our observational abilities, which leaves no real trace on the visible forum. If warnings didn't result in temp bans, which is not logically necessary, then you might never have any indication that they exist at all.

At that point, whether a property like goodness is "physical" or not is kind of semantic. If we accept the premise that God exists, then we've (probably) already conceded that physicality is not necessary for objective existence. Morality would be real in the same way God is; that is, transcendent of our comprehension, in the same way that it is outside of our ability to perceive the warning level of other users on this site.

I am thinking on terms of what is measurable in principle, rather than what can be measured in practice.
The number of warnings on this forum is measurable, even if we, ordinary users, can't actually measure it in practice.
Is morality measurable in principle as a property of the physical world? If yes, what discrete object or phenomenom would God, or anyone else, be looking at to reach moral conclusions? None, because that is not how it works.

When people talk about God's moral commandments, and claim them to be objectively moral, they are not talking about God making statements about the measurable properties of the physical world. Rather, they are talking about God speaking in consonance with his very own properties (much like our very own subjective moral experience) in conjoint with either 'might makes right' or 'obey and you will be thankful later'.

 

[Koldo]

He would be creating it, so it can't only be in the human's mind.

I mean it like this: I don't experience what my children experience, even though I gave rise to their subjective experiences. If I were God, I possibly could choose to experience it too, but that's not necessary.

If the standards God 'decides' on for when water freezes are objective then the standards God 'decides' upon for what is morally right are objective.

The water is going to freeze under those conditions regardless of whether anyone exists. It is mind independent.
But those conditions are indeed arbitrary, at least in principle.

He could make people unable to conceptualise the difference something being physical or abstract.

He is omnipotent, he can remove a couple of concepts that only exist linguistically.

You lost me here. Can you elaborate what this has to do with your argument?

 

[Ella S.]

I am thinking on terms of what is measurable in principle, rather than what can be measured in practice.
The number of warnings on this forum is measurable, even if we, ordinary users, can't actually measure it in practice.
Is morality measurable in principle as a property of the physical world? If yes, what discrete object or phenomenom would God, or anyone else, be looking at to reach moral conclusions? None, because that is not how it works.

When people talk about God's moral commandments, and claim them to be objectively moral, they are not talking about God making statements about the measurable properties of the physical world. Rather, they are talking about God speaking in consonance with his very own properties (much like our very own subjective moral experience) in conjoint with either 'might makes right' or 'obey and you will be thankful later'.

This is a salient point that I think cuts through a great majority of religious claims to objective morality.

I will say that it's not necessarily the case that morality is not considered to be a measurable property, then. Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Mandaenism, and even Christianity and Islam all have a concept of spiritual pollution. Essentially, the more you disobey God, the more you pollute your spirit.

This is where the notion of sin originally came from, this kind of spiritual uncleanliness, and it's part of why ritual cleansing is so important to each of these religions. Although, in Christianity, this is mostly limited to a once-in-a-lifetime baptism and maybe a bit of holy water.

While we can't see one another's spirits, the God of traditional theology can.

Of course, this is merely one example of how moral principles might be measurable principles from a real-world religion. It's not a serious attempt to claim that, if God exists, so does sin. However, if God did exist, then God would have the power to create something like sin, which would make spiritual evil measurable.

Interestingly, there are also divination techniques that supposedly let you figure out how spiritually polluted someone is in a variety of cultures. That doesn't really have too much to do with my argument, I just find the notion of such spiritual substances intriguing. There's also chi, auras, pneuma, mesmeric fluid, etc. None of these are metaphysically impossible; they merely violate a naturalistic worldview and there's no evidence for them. Evil and goodness could be like that, and they are considered to operate that way some of the time in the examples I've given here.

 

[vulcanlogician]

People do come up with reasons for Jewish Laws that seem silly to us. eg. someone might say that the mix of materials in clothing is symbolic of God not wanting Jews to have syncretic religion.
But whatever reason one comes up with the fact remains that for Jews the mix of materials is against God's Law for them.
For you it is not a law and is not morally wrong.

But your argument also could be leveled against scientific claims like "The Earth is round."

A flat Earther can come up with reasons that the Earth is not round. Some of them like to point out that "the horizon is always at eye level." I don't quite understand what that means. But still, that counts as a justification for the belief that the Earth is flat for them.

For me, that does NOT count as a good reason to believe the Earth is flat.

My overarching point here is that just because opinions are different, doesn't mean that some views don't capture reality more precisely than others. Even scientists may disagree about the exact shape of the Earth. Just because there is confusion on the matter, and not everyone agrees, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth about the shape of the Earth "out there" that we can discover.


Am I convinced that my determinations about morality are correct? Ultimately: no.

I could be wrong about stealing. Maybe there is no objective morality at all. But the fact that other people disagree with my moral views cannot be what makes them wrong. The only thing that can make my moral views wrong is if I have misjudged the truth of the moral claims to which I subscribe.

ie. Flat Earthers aren't wrong because they disagree with scientists. They are wrong because the Earth isn't really the shape that they think it is.

How is morality objectively decided by an atheist on the spur of the moment when a decision has to be made?
The answer might be that they do what feels best at the time and either condemn or justify themselves later in the light of day.

I think doing the best you can is the best we can ever hope for. It's the same with math exams. When you are solving math problems during a math exam, you might get some wrong. Does that mean you shouldn't try to figure out the correct answer? Does it mean that there IS no objectively right answer just because you get the answer wrong sometimes?

I don't think morality is something that "can be decided." It's something that we have to figure out.

There are three main metaethical theories that contemporary ethicists work with:

1) Moral Realism

2) Relativism

3) Moral antirealism (sometimes called moral nihilism).

To me, the real question is between 1 and 3. (Moral realism vs moral antirealism). Moral realists (for various reasons) think that some moral claims can be true. Antirealists (for various reasons) think that no moral claim can be true.

You could think of antirealists as "atheists about morality." They think that morality is a fairy tale... some human invention. Much like Odin or Yahweh. Just some made up sh**. I respect that view. Even if I express disagreement with it.

Moral relativists think that it boils down to individual or cultural opinion whether a moral claim is true or not. To me, that's just absurd. It's like saying the shape of the earth depends on whether you're a flat earther or a contemporary scientist.

Either morality is real or it is not real. People's opinions and beliefs, including my own, do not determine the truth of the matter.

Relativism is like saying that Zeus DOES exist according to the ancient Greek opinion. But according to the Ancient Egyptians, Zeus does not exist.

Who cares? Either Zeus exists or he doesn't. Even people who don't believe Zeus exists acknowledge that, in the view of the average ancient Greek person, Zeus DID exist. Likewise, moral realists AND antirealists acknowledge different opinions about morality exist.

Lets consider some cannibalistic tribe for a moment. According to the established folkways of that particular tribe, cannibalism is fine and perfectly permissible. Even a moral realist (whether she thinks cannibalism is wrong or not) can recognize that according to the dictates of the cannablistic tribe cannibalism is good and permissible. Even a moral antirealist (who thinks that all moral questions are founded upon misunderstanding) can recognize that according to the dictates of the cannibalistic tribe cannibalism is good and permissible. Relativism doesn't dare to claim anything one way or the other whether morality is real or not. So I think relativism is pretty useless as a theory. It explains nothing that competing theories can't explain and relativism doesn't even TRY to explain anything more than them.

But the other two theories (realism and antirealism) acknowledge everything that relativism does (ie. folks disagree) and then BOTH of those theories go one step further and try to determine what is actually true. That's why I reject moral relativism. For its uselessness. Not just its falsity.

 

[dybmh]

Is it the case then that you think of hierarchy on terms of who has more destructive power towards the others?

Asked and answered. Definitely not.

Not quite...
All inanimate objects in the world don't have a choice. But they can't be forced to obey because obeying requires a conscious mind choosing to act, on this case choosing to act in a way that is contrary to what it would want to do otherwise. It's for this reason we don't label rocks as slaves...

OK. That's a perfectly fair distinction, thank you.

Can we agree that animals have a conscious mind, and that they are forced to obey humans due to a natural advantage humans have over animals?

I am saying that any hierarchy on our world wouldn't accurately represent the divine hierarchy and therefore entail the existence of falsehood, if we are to define truth and falsehood in terms of what mirrors accurately the divine.

"Any hierarchy wouldn't represent the divine hierarchy"? Any? So somehow you've been able to determine what is and isn't included in the divine realm?

 

[Koldo]

This is a salient point that I think cuts through a great majority of religious claims to objective morality.

I will say that it's not necessarily the case that morality is not considered to be a measurable property, then. Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Mandaenism, and even Christianity and Islam all have a concept of spiritual pollution. Essentially, the more you disobey God, the more you pollute your spirit.

This is where the notion of sin originally came from, this kind of spiritual uncleanliness, and it's part of why ritual cleansing is so important to each of these religions. Although, in Christianity, this is mostly limited to a once-in-a-lifetime baptism and maybe a bit of holy water.

While we can't see one another's spirits, the God of traditional theology can.

Of course, this is merely one example of how moral principles might be measurable principles from a real-world religion. It's not a serious attempt to claim that, if God exists, so does sin. However, if God did exist, then God would have the power to create something like sin, which would make spiritual evil measurable.

Interestingly, there are also divination techniques that supposedly let you figure out how spiritually polluted someone is in a variety of cultures. That doesn't really have too much to do with my argument, I just find the notion of such spiritual substances intriguing. There's also chi, auras, pneuma, mesmeric fluid, etc. None of these are metaphysically impossible; they merely violate a naturalistic worldview and there's no evidence for them. Evil and goodness could be like that, and they are considered to operate that way some of the time in the examples I've given here.

Let's suppose God granted us the ability to see everyone's spirit (as if they were material). Let's also imagine that spirits become of a certain color once they do certain actions, and that we get to call that visible state as 'unclean'. How do we reach the conclusion now that that which makes a spirit unclean is immoral?

 

[Ella S.]

Let's suppose God granted us the ability to see everyone's spirit (as if they were material). Let's also imagine that spirits become of a certain color once they do certain actions, and that we get to call that visible state as 'unclean'. How do we reach the conclusion now that that which makes a spirit unclean is immoral?

I think I see what you're getting at. You're not concerned about whether the idea has root in objective reality or not. You're concerned with whether it fits under the definition of "immoral."

Then I have to ask: Do questions of morality really boil down to semantics? If so, then do words have objective meanings? If words do have objective meanings, how do we determine them?

In my opinion, though, this is the wrong line of questioning. It's pretty trivial to demonstrate that violating the commands of God is a violation of a standard for behavior, which is all "immoral" boils down to according to the lengthy dictionary-hops I just did on Cambridge, Brittanica, and Wiktionary. The trouble with using those can be exemplified by Wiktionary, which defines moral as ethical, and ethical as right, and right as correct, and finally correct as "With good manners; well behaved; conforming with accepted standards of behaviour."

Is the dictionary objectively correct about the meanings it assigns to words? If that's the direction this debate is going to go, I'm not really interested in continuing it. Semantics kind of bore me.

 

[Koldo]

I think I see what you're getting at. You're not concerned about whether the idea has root in objective reality or not. You're concerned with whether it fits under the definition of "immoral."

I don't quite understand why you are saying this. I am concerned with whether the idea of an objective morality is rooted in reality. Regarding your last post, think of it like this: If I were to dive into a mud pool, I would be unclean physically. Would that make the act of diving into a mud pool immoral? If not, why equate that which uncleans the spirit with what is immoral? What's so special about the cleanliness of the spirit that I must equate that which makes it unclean with that which is immoral?

Then I have to ask: Do questions of morality really boil down to semantics? If so, then do words have objective meanings? If words do have objective meanings, how do we determine them?

In my opinion, though, this is the wrong line of questioning. It's pretty trivial to demonstrate that violating the commands of God is a violation of a standard for behavior, which is all "immoral" boils down to according to the lengthy dictionary-hops I just did on Cambridge, Brittanica, and Wiktionary. The trouble with using those can be exemplified by Wiktionary, which defines moral as ethical, and ethical as right, and right as correct, and finally correct as "With good manners; well behaved; conforming with accepted standards of behaviour."

Is the dictionary objectively correct about the meanings it assigns to words? If that's the direction this debate is going to go, I'm not really interested in continuing it. Semantics kind of bore me.

What makes God's standard for behavior intrinsically objective as opposed to my standard for behavior though?

 

[Ella S.]

I don't quite understand why you are saying this. I am concerned with whether the idea of an objective morality is rooted in reality. Regarding your last post, think of it like this: If I were to dive into a mud pool, I would be unclean physically. Would that make the act of diving into a mud pool immoral? If not, why equate that which uncleans the spirit with what is immoral? What's so special about the cleanliness of the spirit that I must equate that which makes it unclean with that which is immoral?

I think that's reversed. It's not that that which uncleans the spirit is immoral; it's that God could make the violation of his moral standards measurable by making it so that those violations unclean the spirit.

What makes God's standard for behavior intrinsically objective as opposed to my standard for behavior though?

God is the creator of objective reality, and so can decide what goes into it, including a built-in moral standard. You cannot build your standard into objective reality.

You could argue that your standard is objective like the moral realists do, though.

 

[Koldo]

Asked and answered. Definitely not.

OK. That's a perfectly fair distinction, thank you.

Can we agree that animals have a conscious mind, and that they are forced to obey humans due to a natural advantage humans have over animals?

I would say it is the artificial advantages that allow us to force many animals to obey.

"Any hierarchy wouldn't represent the divine hierarchy"? Any? So somehow you've been able to determine what is and isn't included in the divine realm?

Think of it like this: If an accurate representation entails truth, and truth is objectively moral, that which is not an accurate representation is not truth, and therefore not moral. Would you agree? (I think after all you didn't mean that falsehood is moral).

If so, lack of accuracy is not truth, and therefore a falsehood.
To accurately represent something, nothing can be missing.
Analogous representations involve necessarily replacing parts of that which is intended to be represented. For example, let's suppose God's relationship with angels is akin (analogous representation) to that of a shepherd with sheeps. Entertain the thought that this statement is true just for the sake of the argument. Sheeps don't fly though (unlike angels) and shepherds aren't omnipotent. Therefore, analogies are never completely accurate representations. Meaning they always contain falsehoods.

 

[Koldo]

I think that's reversed. It's not that that which uncleans the spirit is immoral; it's that God could make the violation of his moral standards measurable by making it so that those violations unclean the spirit.

God is the creator of objective reality, and so can decide what goes into it, including a built-in moral standard. You cannot build your standard into objective reality.

You could argue that your standard is objective like the moral realists do, though.

But do you count a mere scoreboard that keeps track of purported moral action as a built-in moral standard though?
I have just now created a new game, it is called Voccer. It is very similar to soccer, but it has one additional rule: The number of goals each team scores represents the number of immoral actions each team has done during the game. My game, my rules, and it comes with a way to measure morality. Do you think there is validity in adding this new rule, as in, do you think that by adding this rule I can accurately measure morality during the game? The rule to determine morality is fairly objective, but am I really measuring it by merely claiming that certain actions entail morality/immorality? I don't see how. If no one sees that rule as truly measuring morality, how could I be measuring morality?

The mere act of declaring something to be measuring morality doesn't mean it is measuring morality. That's the point. Not even if this decree comes from God. For morality is about perception, it is about feeling something to be moral. It is an inner experience that exists in the mind.

 

[dybmh]

I would say it is the artificial advantages that allow us to force many animals to obey.

The reason that humans have a natural advantge is not artificial. The fundemental difference / advantage is that humans are able to study animal behavior, collect this information, and add to this collected wisdom from generation to generation. Techniques for tracking, trapping, and training animals have been developing for centuries. And as a result, animals are forced to obey. This ignores the obvious tech advantage coming from metal tools, concrete structures, and firearms.

If so, lack of accuracy is not truth, and therefore a falsehood.
To accurately represent something, nothing can be missing.
Analogous representations involve necessarily replacing parts of that which is intended to be represented. For example, let's suppose God's relationship with angels is akin (analogous representation) to that of a shepherd with sheeps. Entertain the thought that this statement is true just for the sake of the argument. Sheeps don't fly though (unlike angels) and shepherds aren't omnipotent. Therefore, analogies are never completely accurate representations. Meaning they always contain falsehoods.

The relationship: "shepherd / sheep" has nothing to do with wings or flight.

You're being overly literal. It's like saying the statement "The sky is blue" isn't true unless it's written in blue ink.

Anyway, I addressed this in the original proposal.

I'm not talking about white lies / half truths / one person being polite and being a little dishonest. I'm talking about saying up is down, left is right, a dog is a cat... that sort of blatant falsehood. Can we agree that these things have zero value?

So, pretending there isn't a hierarchy when there is, would be immoral. Or, pretending reality is fair, when it's not would also be immoral. A clear accurate reflection would be moral, a wavy fun-house mirror would not.

Let's also imagine that spirits become of a certain color once they do certain actions, and that we get to call that visible state as 'unclean'. How do we reach the conclusion now that that which makes a spirit unclean is immoral?

If I were to dive into a mud pool, I would be unclean physically. Would that make the act of diving into a mud pool immoral? If not, why equate that which uncleans the spirit with what is immoral?

If you don't mind, I can address this. In Judaism, we have this model for sin. The idea is that sin as a sticky residue interferes with well-being, prevents a person from fully experiencing spiritual pleasure. It makes a person dull, and coarse. That's the theory.

 

[Ella S.]

But do you count a mere scoreboard that keeps track of purported moral action as a built-in moral standard though?
I have just now created a new game, it is called Voccer. It is very similar to soccer, but it has one additional rule: The number of goals each team scores represents the number of immoral actions each team has done during the game. My game, my rules, and it comes with a way to measure morality. Do you think there is validity in adding this new rule, as in, do you think that by adding this rule I can accurately measure morality during the game? The rule to determine morality is fairly objective, but am I really measuring it by merely claiming that certain actions entail morality/immorality? I don't see how. If no one sees that rule as truly measuring morality, how could I be measuring morality?

The mere act of declaring something to be measuring morality doesn't mean it is measuring morality. That's the point. Not even if this decree comes from God. For morality is about perception, it is about feeling something to be moral. It is an inner experience that exists in the mind.

If you declared something to be measuring morality, maybe not. It's debatable whether your standard of behavior constitutes morality or not.

Except God is the one who decides what's objective and what isn't because, in this scenario, God is the one who created objective reality. God would also be the one who created our ability to form concepts about objectivity and morality, making God the root of both of them.

Contradicting God on morality at that point would be more like playing soccer and then trying to correct the referee based on the standards of Voccer. You would be objectively wrong about what the rules of the game are and what the score is.

 

[Koldo]

If you declared something to be measuring morality, maybe not. It's debatable whether your standard of behavior constitutes morality or not.

Except God is the one who decides what's objective and what isn't because, in this scenario, God is the one who created objective reality.

I don't see how this could make sense, unless by 'objective reality' you mean 'the universe'.
Otherwise you would be saying something akin to: God doesn't objectively exist in reality, but he created objective reality. Which would mean he doesn't really exist but has causal power...

God would also be the one who created our ability to form concepts about objectivity and morality, making God the root of both of them.

Sure... Being the root of something doesn't mean you get to determine everything about it.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't see how this could make sense, unless by 'objective reality' you mean 'the universe'.
Otherwise you would be saying something akin to: God doesn't objectively exist in reality, but he created objective reality. Which would mean he doesn't really exist but has causal power...

That's because you're interpreting "objective reality" through the lens of naturalism again, which isn't relevant to the discussion.

Sure... Being the root of something doesn't mean you get to determine everything about it.

If you create a game, you get to determine the rules of the game. If you program a virtual reality, you get to design which properties are stored in memory. If you write a story, you get to determine what moral it has. If you're a prince and write the laws of your principality, you get to determine what's legal and what isn't.

And being an omnipotent creator means you get to determine everything about your creation.

 

[Koldo]

The reason that humans have a natural advantge is not artificial. The fundemental difference / advantage is that humans are able to study animal behavior, collect this information, and add to this collected wisdom from generation to generation. Techniques for tracking, trapping, and training animals have been developing for centuries. And as a result, animals are forced to obey. This ignores the obvious tech advantage coming from metal tools, concrete structures, and firearms.

Without tools (artificial advantages), mere knowledge wouldn't be sufficient to make many animals obey. Best chance would be taming.

The relationship: "shepherd / sheep" has nothing to do with wings or flight.

You're being overly literal. It's like saying the statement "The sky is blue" isn't true unless it's written in blue ink.

Anyway, I addressed this in the original proposal.

A statement doesn't have a color.
Anyway, that was a simplification. But either the analogous representation is fully accurate or it is not. Is the hierarchy between God and angels accurately represented by the hierarchy between humans and sheeps? No, because there are multiple factors involved, only some of which can properly represented by the analogy.

So, pretending there isn't a hierarchy when there is, would be immoral. Or, pretending reality is fair, when it's not would also be immoral. A clear accurate reflection would be moral, a wavy fun-house mirror would not.

Analogous representation is the reflection of a wavy fun-house mirror.

If you don't mind, I can address this. In Judaism, we have this model for sin. The idea is that sin as a sticky residue interferes with well-being, prevents a person from fully experiencing spiritual pleasure. It makes a person dull, and coarse. That's the theory.

Is that which "interferes with well-being," and "prevents a person from fully experiencing spiritual pleasure" immoral? If so, why?

 

[Koldo]

That's because you're interpreting "objective reality" through the lens of naturalism again, which isn't relevant to the discussion.

I am not. I really tried to consider other perspectives, but none made any more sense to me. Can you elaborate if you disagree with my assessment? In what way could God have created objective reality?

If you create a game, you get to determine the rules of the game. If you program a virtual reality, you get to design which properties are stored in memory. If you write a story, you get to determine what moral it has. If you're a prince and write the laws of your principality, you get to determine what's legal and what isn't.

And being an omnipotent creator means you get to determine everything about your creation.

Why?
It is important to distinguish power in itself from authority.
So, if I create a box made of wood, that entails I have the power (or had) to choose it's features. I have power over the wood if I can change its' features (such as shape).
If I am a king though, my power to create rules actually comes from my authority. As in, I can coerce people into obeying.

If God has raw power over morality on this world, he can change morality according to his will. But morality is not physical, it is like a set of rules, so in what way would he shape morality?

If God's power comes from authority, then he is not changing reality. He is just coercing people into obeying.

 

[dybmh]

Without tools (artificial advantages), mere knowledge wouldn't be sufficient to make many animals obey. Best chance would be taming.

Taming absolutely counts.

But either the analogous representation is fully accurate or it is not.

No that is not my proposal. This is becoming a strawman.

As I said in the beginning, and I restated in my most recent previous reply. I am defining immoral as completely opposite of the truth. Up is down, black is white, dog is cat, all of these have zero value. Claims like this are objectively immoral. Dog is dog, cat is cat, up is up, down is down, has value and is objectively moral.

And since there is some confusion, I'll restate again. If a hierarchy exists, ignoring that or misrepresenting that is immoral. If reality isn't fair, pretending it is, is also immoral.

A cougar is a cat and a calico is a cat is true, eventhough a cougar and a calico are not identical. I could even argue that under certain circumstances, in poetry or comedy, that saying a cougar is a calico has value and is not immoral.

A cougar is a calico is a "half-truth", and I excluded those from my proposal at the very beginning, and restated it recently.

Is the hierarchy between God and angels accurately represented by the hierarchy between humans and sheeps? No

Ummmm how do you know? You're making assumptions about the divine realm with zero knowledge, correct?

My proposal does not require knowledge because I am saying "it could be moral if it's true." You're saying "it can't be true, because it isn't", but you have no actual basis for this.

Analogous representation is the reflection of a wavy fun-house mirror.

I'm not making an analogous representation. And that's actually the whole point.

If I were making an analogy, and an analogy would work to represent the truth, then slaves would not be required at all to accurately represent the truth of the divine order. Any old hierarchy would serve the purpose. But that's not my position.

Is that which "interferes with well-being," and "prevents a person from fully experiencing spiritual pleasure" immoral? If so, why?

Well, I didn't fully explain that did I? That would an incentive, but not really a moral imperative. The moral imperative comes from the interconnectedness of the Jewish people like grapes all on one vine. If one grape is diseased, it spreads to the other grapes. So one person's impurity affects the whole bunch.