Objective Morality Without God

[Rival]

But what we're talking about is some sort of "objective" morality that supposedly comes from God. So, what populations of human beings wanted or believed is irrelevant to the discussion about what objective morality stemming from God(s) would look like.

It's not irrelevant at all.

What we are talking about is known as Divine Condescension: Accommodation (religion) - Wikipedia

"In his discussion of accommodation, Thomas Hartwell Horne, the English theologian, distinguishes between the 'form' and 'essence' of revelation.[9] The former refers to the manner in which the Biblical text expresses its content; the latter, to the content which is expressed through the Biblical text. Thus, there are two possible kinds of Biblical accommodation: one which holds that merely the expressive form of the Bible is modified to accord with human capacities; and a stronger version, which holds that the content of the Bible is modified to conform with human perceptions of divine reality, to the extent that it may be literally false."

We are dealing with the Torah etc. as it has been understood since Antiquity.

The very incarnation of Christ is a form of Divine Accomodation.

I also pointed out that God apparently has no problem dictating commands about all kinds of things from not eating shellfish to not murdering and then turns around and commands his chosen people to take slaves as property and to murder their neighbours, among other terrible things that you listed in your last post.

Yes.

This is not objective morality. And then you say, ‘oh God makes exceptions about these moral dictates for all the flaws in ‘human nature’ – because humans don’t know that slavery is wrong. Well, apparently God doesn’t either.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the complexities of how Torah and Tanakh interpretation works theologically. I already showed you the passage where God says he hates divorce, yet his Torah allows it. These two are representative of the fact that, whilst God has objectivity, he also has Divine Condescension and these two exist together. The Tanakh is replete with examples of this. God has an objective - divorce is bad - but allows it. If you then believe that Christ is the fullness of divine revelation, he reveals the reason why it was allowed despite being hated and he makes it harder to divorce. This is where the idea, for Christians, of Progressive Revelation comes in. The plain idea that 'God says so therefore...'is far too simplistic an understanding.

From a Jewish POV The Torah Speaks in the Language of Man - by Natan Slifkin (rationalistjudaism.com)

"That is why Jewish scholarship regards the Bible as speaking consistently in “human language;” the Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to God, but in terms of human understanding, which is, after all, the basis for human language and expression. (Collected Writings vol. 7 p. 57)"

Remember, my original point of contention with you was that morality coming from God(s) is just as subjective as morality coming from humans. You’ve helped demonstrate that here, whether you wanted to or not.

No, what you've done is misunderstood. God is objective. Humans are not. See everything I wrote above.

What you have described here is subjective morality – morality that is subject to the whims and opinions of some God, which can and has changed across time.

No, subject to how human beings can be condescended to and aided by an objective God. We cannot hope to objectively understand the basis of all existence, God, at all.

Which is actually the exact thing we would expect to see if there weren’t any God dictating morality to us – humans trying to figure it out over time, and getting it wrong sometimes, and correcting that as time goes on.

Or a God who understands man's limits and cultures.

Nobody living today (well, almost nobody) would say that slavery as described in the Bible is a moral thing. Well, that’s not thanks to any God dictating that to us. That came from ourselves and our constantly evolving morality that changes as we grow as a species and learn new things about ourselves and our fellow humans.

Actually, as I said in my other post, the God of the Bible doesn't seem to like slavery much either and the abolition movement was based on Christianity and scripture.

 

[Koldo]

Not if it's dependent on an eternal, external supernatural agent.

How could that be the case? Do you mean as in existing in his mind?

If no one was able to perceive it, the eternal, external supernatural agent and its characteristics would still exist.

So unless you are saying the external supernatural agent is mind dependent, then it's not mind dependent.

I don't quite get what you are saying here.
Are you defining morality as a characteristic of God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I t's not irrelevant at all.

What we are talking about is known as Divine Condescension: Accommodation (religion) - Wikipedia

"In his discussion of accommodation, Thomas Hartwell Horne, the English theologian, distinguishes between the 'form' and 'essence' of revelation.[9] The former refers to the manner in which the Biblical text expresses its content; the latter, to the content which is expressed through the Biblical text. Thus, there are two possible kinds of Biblical accommodation: one which holds that merely the expressive form of the Bible is modified to accord with human capacities; and a stronger version, which holds that the content of the Bible is modified to conform with human perceptions of divine reality, to the extent that it may be literally false."

We are dealing with the Torah etc. as it has been understood since Antiquity.

The very incarnation of Christ is a form of Divine Accomodation.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this addresses the point.

Yes.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the complexities of how Torah and Tanakh interpretation works theologically. I already showed you the passage where God says he hates divorce, yet his Torah allows it. These two are representative of the fact that, whilst God has objectivity, he also has Divine Condescension and these two exist together. The Tanakh is replete with examples of this. God has an objective - divorce is bad - but allows it. If you then believe that Christ is the fullness of divine revelation, he reveals the reason why it was allowed despite being hated and he makes it harder to divorce. This is where the idea, for Christians, of Progressive Revelation comes in.

I already addressed this point.
Divorce is immoral, but it's okay because humans do it anyway, so God allows it. Is that what you're telling me?
So murder is also immoral, but it's also okay because humans do it anyway, so this God allows it?
So rape is immoral, but it's also okay because humans do it anyway, so this God allows it?

What is this God's supposed objective?

The plain idea that 'God says so therefore...'is far too simplistic an understanding.

What's the point of the Commandments, then?

From a Jewish POV The Torah Speaks in the Language of Man - by Natan Slifkin (rationalistjudaism.com)

"That is why Jewish scholarship regards the Bible as speaking consistently in “human language;” the Bible does not describe things in terms of objective truths known only to God, but in terms of human understanding, which is, after all, the basis for human language and expression. (Collected Writings vol. 7 p. 57)"

Sounds like human beings wrote these books to me.

No, what you've done is misunderstood. God is objective. Humans are not. See everything I wrote above.

What you've shown is that this supposed objective morality is subject to God's opinions and whims. "Murder is bad, unless I tell you to murder, then it's good."

And actually, what you've described here is the exact system of morality we would expect to find if there were no god(s); humans are just trying to figure out for ourselves what is immoral or moral.

No, subject to how human beings can be condescended to and aided by an objective God. We cannot hope to objectively understand the basis of all existence, God, at all.

Or a God who understands man's limits and cultures.

This is moral relativism.

Why are we even assuming in the first place that some God would have our best interests in mind? Maybe there's a God out there who wishes the worst for us.

Actually, as I said in my other post, the God of the Bible doesn't seem to like slavery much either ...

I don't know what Bible you're reading, but that's not how it sounds at all. A God that takes the time to explain to his mortal creations where to buy slaves, how to beat them, how to pass them down as inherited property to one's children, etc. doesn't sound to me like any god that "doesn't seem to like slavery." I mean, a God who "doesn't seem to like slavery" would probably say "Slavery is wrong."

and the abolition movement was based on Christianity and scripture.

So I've been told by Christians. Except that the Bible explains how to do slavery, so I'm not buying that. Also, it ignores all the Christians who were just fine with the slavery as justified in the Bible in the centuries before the abolition movement came along.

 

[dybmh]

What is this God's supposed objective?

The objective is that the divine order is reflected in the material world. It is establishing a hierarchy. Not that I like it. But that's the big picture. This intention is effectively erased in Christianity and Islam. Many people feel that this is a better more moral approach.

So what you have with non-Jewish slaves is one part of a caste system.

How is this objectively moral? That get's complicated. How can something unfair be moral?

Premise 1: Truth is objectively moral. Falsehood is objectively immoral.

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, what if reality is actually unfair? What if that's true? What if who you're born to actually makes a huge difference in who you are and what your lot is in life? Is that objectively true? Yes! It's observable in nature.

The hierarchy is ( bottom to top ): gas, mineral, plant, animal. Vegetarians can live happy healthy moral lives. But if they decide that plants are equal to animals, they stop eating, they'll live for months. If that person goes one step further and decides that minerals are also equal to plants and animals, they stop drinking water, they will live for days. And finally if they decide that gasses are equal to minerals, plants and animals, they stop breathing and they will live for minutes. A hierarchy exists in nature, that is objectively true.

Does this hierarchy convey superior value from one element to the next? I vote no. Each member of the chain has its role. If it was missing the whole chain is compromised.

Is there a hierarchy among gasses? Yes, some gasses are highly reactive, some are perfectly stable. Is there a hierarchy of minerals? Yes, some break down quickly others do not. Is there a hierarchy of plants? Yes, ivy and weeds dominate other slower propogating species. Is there a hierarchy of animals? Yes, do you really need examples? So, even among people, there is probably a natural hierarchy.

Premise 2: As there is a hierachy in nature, there is a hierarchy beyond nature in the divine.

This matches Jewish theology. God is at the top, next ( believe it or not ) comes people, below are chief angels, the angels are organized into troops aka "hosts" like an army. And because of this, God is often described in Judaism as The Lord of Hosts.​

If there is a hierarchy in nature and a hierarchy in the divine, AND if truth is objectively moral, then laws which communicate this truth are also objectively moral. Laws which deny this truth are objectively immoral.

Now. There is a problem which needs to be addressed. Is it objectively moral for a log chopper, a water carrier, aka a servant, who happens to be brilliant to be prevented and prohibited from education which would enable that individual to rise above their given station and bring innovation? Maybe. It depends on the innovation, right? Chemistry is great till someone builds a bomb. Airplanes are great till someone hijacks it. Medication is great till someone uses it as a poison. Maybe it *is* moral that everyone fulfills their role, accepts their lot in life and doesn't branch out from that and innovate.

What about war? Don't people need to develop technology to defend themselves? What about sickness? Don't people have a right to seek cures for what ails them? Shouldn't anyone who is capable regardless of station be permitted to this noble pursuit?

Premise 3: If the hierachy is established, and each person fills their role, God will eliminate all sickness and war.

This also reflects Jewish theology as is well known.​

Given premises 1, 2, and 3, establishing a caste system is objectively moral. It's not fair. Maybe it doesn't feel right. And maybe there is no proof for premises 2 and 3. But! If all three premises are true, then an objective moral system has been developed and is revealed in the Hebrew bible and that includes servants ( commonly called slaves ).

 

[Koldo]

The objective is that the divine order is reflected in the material world. It is establishing a hierarchy. Not that I like it. But that's the big picture. This intention is effectively erased in Christianity and Islam. Many people feel that this is a better more moral approach.

So what you have with non-Jewish slaves is one part of a caste system.

How is this objectively moral? That get's complicated. How can something unfair be moral?

Premise 1: Truth is objectively moral. Falsehood is objectively immoral.

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, what if reality is actually unfair? What if that's true? What if who you're born to actually makes a huge difference in who you are and what your lot is in life? Is that objectively true? Yes! It's observable in nature.

The hierarchy is ( bottom to top ): gas, mineral, plant, animal. Vegetarians can live happy healthy moral lives. But if they decide that plants are equal to animals, they stop eating, they'll live for months. If that person goes one step further and decides that minerals are also equal to plants and animals, they stop drinking water, they will live for days. And finally if they decide that gasses are equal to minerals, plants and animals, they stop breathing and they will live for minutes. A hierarchy exists in nature, that is objectively true.

When you say hierarchy, I think of chain of command, particularly because you say being higher in the hierarchy doesn't mean having a higher value. But that also doesn't work, for animals can't properly give orders to plants, nor can plants give order to minerals and so on. Nor does hierarchy have anything to do with what we eat per se. It looks like what you are referring vaguely resembles the food chain, but I am not really sure, because the divine order wouldn't have a food chain... or would it?

Does this hierarchy convey superior value from one element to the next? I vote no. Each member of the chain has its role. If it was missing the whole chain is compromised.

Is there a hierarchy among gasses? Yes, some gasses are highly reactive, some are perfectly stable. Is there a hierarchy of minerals? Yes, some break down quickly others do not. Is there a hierarchy of plants? Yes, ivy and weeds dominate other slower propogating species. Is there a hierarchy of animals? Yes, do you really need examples? So, even among people, there is probably a natural hierarchy.

It seems like you are choosing arbitrary ideas, like how stable gasses are, how resistent minerals are, and so on to create some sort of ranking. Other than being arbitrary parameters, I am unsure how this connects to your concept of hierarchy.

Premise 2: As there is a hierachy in nature, there is a hierarchy beyond nature in the divine.

This matches Jewish theology. God is at the top, next ( believe it or not ) comes people, below are chief angels, the angels are organized into troops aka "hosts" like an army. And because of this, God is often described in Judaism as The Lord of Hosts.​

If there is a hierarchy in nature and a hierarchy in the divine, AND if truth is objectively moral, then laws which communicate this truth are also objectively moral. Laws which deny this truth are objectively immoral.

What does it mean to deny this truth though?
Because from the context, it looks like what you mean by this is: Laws that don't create a parallel between the divine order and the natural world, thus creating a natural order that reflects the concept behind the divine word, are objectively immoral. Is this correct? Why do slaves have to exist though? What in the divine order equals to slaves?

 

[dybmh]

When you say hierarchy, I think of chain of command, particularly because you say being higher in the hierarchy doesn't mean having a higher value. But that also doesn't work, for animals can't properly give orders to plants, nor can plants give order to minerals and so on. Nor does hierarchy have anything to do with what we eat per se. It looks like what you are referring vaguely resembles the food chain, but I am not really sure, because the divine order wouldn't have a food chain... or would it?

The idea of a hierarchy that I was trying to describe wasn't based on giving orders. The idea is that each part of the chain has its role. And as each link is elevated beyond its station, the results become more and more dire. A person elevating animal to equal human? Not so bad. A person elevating animal and plant to equal human is a problem. A person elevating animal, plant, and mineral to equal human is a big problem. A person elevating animal, plant, mineral, and gas to equal human is a huge problem.

Arguably, a person might be able to elevate only plants, refusing to eat them and be ok, I'm not sure. But certainly air is most important for survival, then comes water, then comes food. That's a natural hierarchy.

But, you're right. Ultimately in order to justify a caste system as objectively true, someone's giving orders, someone is a leader, others are followers. The follower defers to the leader.

Clover defers to the rabbit who is eating it. Water defers to the plant which is drinking it. Water vapor defers to liquid water when it condenses. There is a natural hierarchy.

It seems like you are choosing arbitrary ideas, like how stable gasses are, how resistent minerals are, and so on to create some sort of ranking. Other than being arbitrary parameters, I am unsure how this connects to your concept of hierarchy.

Plants: ivy rules over almost anything out in the open.
Minerals: Iron rules over slate
Gasses: Flourine rules over almost all gasses
Animals: Humans are the apex predator

What does it mean to deny this truth though?

That everyone is identical in purpose; that everyone is well suited to be either a leader or a follower regardless of their ancestry. I was not born an animal, or a plant. If I were born as an animal or a plant, then I would be suitable for food. If I was an air molecule, i would be suitable to be breathed. I wasn't born as either of these things, pretending I'm an animal or a plant would be untrue.

I wasn't raised in a household of leaders. I am not a good leader. I've managed people in my professional life, but it was unnatural for me. Pretending I'm a leader would not be true. Pretending that anyone can be a good leader, in my opinion, is not true. Pretending everyone can be a priest, is not true. Pretending that carrying water and chopping wood is somehow less important than the priest who depends on that wood and water, would also be... not true.

Yes, this hierachy involves command and deference. This model is reflected in the natural world, it is believed to be true in the divine realm as well. Establishing a hierarchy similar to what is observed in nature, similar to what is ( in theory ) in the divine is communicating truth. Making every person's station equal, while that sounds good, would not reflect the divine truth thus making it objectively immoral.

Because from the context, it looks like what you mean by this is: Laws that don't create a parallel between the divine order and the natural world, thus creating a natural order that reflects the concept behind the divine word, are objectively immoral. Is this correct? Why do slaves have to exist though? What in the divine order equals to slaves?

Well, the cheif angels are slaves to God. The angels are slaves to the cheifs. Water is a slave to osmosis... somethings naturally submit, that is their station, their role.

 

[Koldo]

The idea of a hierarchy that I was trying to describe wasn't based on giving orders. The idea is that each part of the chain has its role. And as each link is elevated beyond its station, the results become more and more dire. A person elevating animal to equal human? Not so bad. A person elevating animal and plant to equal human is a problem. A person elevating animal, plant, and mineral to equal human is a big problem. A person elevating animal, plant, mineral, and gas to equal human is a huge problem.

Arguably, a person might be able to elevate only plants, refusing to eat them and be ok, I'm not sure. But certainly air is most important for survival, then comes water, then comes food. That's a natural hierarchy.

But, you're right. Ultimately in order to justify a caste system as objectively true, someone's giving orders, someone is a leader, others are followers. The follower defers to the leader.

Clover defers to the rabbit who is eating it. Water defers to the plant which is drinking it. Water vapor defers to liquid water when it condenses. There is a natural hierarchy.

What do you mean by 'defers'?
In what way does a clover defer to the rabbit eating it? And why is the air bellow plants on this hierarchy?

Plants: ivy rules over almost anything out in the open.
Minerals: Iron rules over slate
Gasses: Flourine rules over almost all gasses
Animals: Humans are the apex predator

Rules? In what sense do those things rule?

That everyone is identical in purpose; that everyone is well suited to be either a leader or a follower regardless of their ancestry. I was not born an animal, or a plant. If I were born as an animal or a plant, then I would be suitable for food. If I was an air molecule, i would be suitable to be breathed. I wasn't born as either of these things, pretending I'm an animal or a plant would be untrue.

I have no idea why you find ancestry to be worth of note. Nor why you think you aren't suitable as food.

I wasn't raised in a household of leaders. I am not a good leader. I've managed people in my professional life, but it was unnatural for me. Pretending I'm a leader would not be true. Pretending that anyone can be a good leader, in my opinion, is not true. Pretending everyone can be a priest, is not true. Pretending that carrying water and chopping wood is somehow less important than the priest who depends on that wood and water, would also be... not true.

I don't think everyone can be a good leader either. I don't see what being raised in a household of leaders has to do with it, after all if that made good leaders monarchies would still be the standard form of government nowadays.

Yes, this hierachy involves command and deference. This model is reflected in the natural world, it is believed to be true in the divine realm as well. Establishing a hierarchy similar to what is observed in nature, similar to what is ( in theory ) in the divine is communicating truth. Making every person's station equal, while that sounds good, would not reflect the divine truth thus making it objectively immoral.
Well, the cheif angels are slaves to God. The angels are slaves to the cheifs. Water is a slave to osmosis... somethings naturally submit, that is their station, their role.

Water is a slave to osmosis...?
That's really arbitrary. It seems like you are expanding the meaning of the word 'slave' to justify the existence of slaves.

 

[dybmh]

What do you mean by 'defers'?
In what way does a clover defer to the rabbit eating it?

The rabbit chooses to eat the clover, the clover doesn't protest.

And why is the air below plants on this hierarchy?

Because the plant is active and the air is passive.

Rules? In what sense do those things rule?

I'm making an analogy. The iron doesn't literally rule over slate. But there are natural proporties of iron which render slate subservient to it. An iron hammer can be used to flake off slate. Even a small hammer can shape a very large piece of slate. In this way, iron rules over slate. The iron is in the position of active, the slate is in the position of passive. the same can be said of ivy over grass. The ivy is active, the grass is passive. Same with flourine, flourine is more active, the other elements are passive.

When it comes to humans, it's not as simple as active/passive, but humans do have natural advantages which have rendered us in the position of dominance over other animals.

So, there's a natural hierarchy within the groups: gas, mineral, plant, animal.

I have no idea why you find ancestry to be worth of note.

That's the caste system. It's not fair, but it could still be moral.

Nor why you think you aren't suitable as food.

It's not about what I think. If it was, that would be a subjective moral system. Somehow, naturally, I'm not on the menu. I actually was on the menu once. Out camping on my own, simmering soup, and a cougar came into my camp. Super scarey, but no harm done. Long story short, I don't simmer soup in the woods anymore.

I don't think everyone can be a good leader either. I don't see what being raised in a household of leaders has to do with it, after all if that made good leaders monarchies would still be the standard form of government nowadays.

I don't know why monarchies failed. But, I can tell you from my own experience, my grandfather fixed stuff, my dad fixd stuff, and now I fix stuff. He watched how his dad did it, I wayched how my Dad did it, now I do it too and I'm pretty good at it. Nature+nurture both seem to be involved. Epigenetics seems to indicate there's something to these family trades.

Water is a slave to osmosis...?

Water isn't a slave to osmosis?

That's really arbitrary. It seems like you are expanding the meaning of the word 'slave' to justify the existence of slaves.

This was your argument in a previous thread we had. You kept saying I was redefining things when you simply didn't like that I was making good points.

You can discard this entire "natural hierarchy" that I'm describing and it actually changes nothing.

If there is a divine hierarchy which is true, developing laws to communicate that divine hierarchy is objectively moral if truth is objectively moral.

 

[Koldo]

The rabbit chooses to eat the clover, the clover doesn't protest.

How could it even protest...?
And slaves can and do protest...

Because the plant is active and the air is passive.

And therefore this means one is higher up in the hierarchy because...? There is a hidden premise here somewhere.

I'm making an analogy. The iron doesn't literally rule over slate. But there are natural proporties of iron which render slate subservient to it. An iron hammer can be used to flake off slate. Even a small hammer can shape a very large piece of slate. In this way, iron rules over slate. The iron is in the position of active, the slate is in the position of passive. the same can be said of ivy over grass. The ivy is active, the grass is passive. Same with flourine, flourine is more active, the other elements are passive.

When it comes to humans, it's not as simple as active/passive, but humans do have natural advantages which have rendered us in the position of dominance over other animals.

But an iron hammer doesn't suddenly show up out of thin air and starts hitting slate. Iron is completely passive when found in nature.

Ivy is just reacting to the environment when it spreads around...

So, there's a natural hierarchy within the groups: gas, mineral, plant, animal.

That's the caste system. It's not fair, but it could still be moral.

It's not about what I think. If it was, that would be a subjective moral system. Somehow, naturally, I'm not on the menu. I actually was on the menu once. Out camping on my own, simmering soup, and a cougar came into my camp. Super scarey, but no harm done. Long story short, I don't simmer soup in the woods anymore.

If the cougar thought of you as suitable for food, why aren't you?

I don't know why monarchies failed. But, I can tell you from my own experience, my grandfather fixed stuff, my dad fixd stuff, and now I fix stuff. He watched how his dad did it, I wayched how my Dad did it, now I do it too and I'm pretty good at it. Nature+nurture both seem to be involved. Epigenetics seems to indicate there's something to these family trades.

I am not saying there is no influence, but a rigid caste doesn't make sense.

Water isn't a slave to osmosis?

How could it be... ?

This was your argument in a previous thread we had. You kept saying I was redefining things when you simply didn't like that I was making good points.

You can discard this entire "natural hierarchy" that I'm describing and it actually changes nothing.

If there is a divine hierarchy which is true, developing laws to communicate that divine hierarchy is objectively moral if truth is objectively moral.

You are using incorrectly the word "communication". Creating a social hierarchy is not simple communication. It is creating a parallel in our world of the divine hierarchy, given your posts. This has nothing to do with truth. (I also reject the premise that truth is objectively moral, but I am putting that aside for the sake of the debate)

 

[dybmh]

How could it even protest...?
And slaves can and do protest...

Ideally, they wouldn't.

And therefore this means one is higher up in the hierarchy because...? There is a hidden premise here somewhere.

Nothing intentionally hidden. Instead of active/passive, does dominant/submissive work better?

But an iron hammer doesn't suddenly show up out of thin air and starts hitting slate. Iron is completely passive when found in nature.

Ivy is just reacting to the environment when it spreads around...

Agreed. Still, there are no slate hammers because ?? And ivy is a bad choice for a garden next to your neighbor's grass because ??

If the cougar thought of you as suitable for food, why aren't you?

I honestly don't know. I guess I am suitable, but I also had a natural advantage, gratefully.

I am not saying there is no influence, but a rigid caste doesn't make sense.

I agree, but making sense isn't the metric. The metric is truth.

How could it be... ?

Slaves don't have choice, the water doesn't have choice.

You are using incorrectly the word "communication". Creating a social hierarchy is not simple communication. It is creating a parallel in our world of the divine hierarchy, given your posts.

OK. That's a fair way of describing what I mean. Thank you,

This has nothing to do with truth.

Nothing? So when you look in a mirror at the parallel image of yourself, it has nothing to do with how you look? No truth to it at all? Nothing. Come on.

(I also reject the premise that truth is objectively moral, but I am putting that aside for the sake of the debate)

OK, I appreciate that. Maybe we can talk about that at some point.

 

[Augustus]

How could that be the case? Do you mean as in existing in his mind?

Because something created by an external agent can't simply exist in the mind.

I don't see such as God as having a "mind" in the human sense, so no it doesn't exist in God's mind, but as something built into the created world like any feature built into a computer programme or game.

Clearly such a "feature" cannot be dependent on the human mind which is good enough for me. Whether it is dependent on 'the mind of god' is basically just a semantic and conceptual exercise regarding an entity neither of us believe in so there is little way to progress.

Also, remember you are using a very different definition of objective morality than most people. Generally the term is used to refer to objective (i.e. not personal and subjective) standards of right and wrong.

Do you agree a God could create such standards? (for example: blasphemy and pre-marital sex are objectively immoral)

I don't quite get what you are saying here.
Are you defining morality as a characteristic of God?

That would be one view, but as I said earlier, discussing the fine theological details of something you don't believe in is a bit pointless.

 

[wellwisher]

Because something created by an external agent can't simply exist in the mind.

I don't see such as God as having a "mind" in the human sense, so no it doesn't exist in God's mind, but as something built into the created world like any feature built into a computer programme or game.

Clearly such a "feature" cannot be dependent on the human mind which is good enough for me. Whether it is dependent on 'the mind of god' is basically just a semantic and conceptual exercise regarding an entity neither of us believe in so there is little way to progress.

Also, remember you are using a very different definition of objective morality than most people. Generally the term is used to refer to objective (i.e. not personal and subjective) standards of right and wrong.

Do you agree a God could create such standards? (for example: blasphemy and pre-marital sex are objectively immoral)

That would be one view, but as I said earlier, discussing the fine theological details of something you don't believe in is a bit pointless.

The problem many people have with morality is in accepting the argument that morality is not about the individual. That is relative morality. Morality has to do with the needs of the entire group.

Morality is based on the premise that the team can become more than the sum of its parts. This is how you can objectively compare different moral systems. The needs of the team is not optimized when everyone gets to choose, so everyone can pretend to be a hotdog. That harms the team spirit and therefore can be dismissed as second rate. There is no good team where all the players can go their own way. You need team spirit and all on the same page. The team has a mission and this does not include everyone slacking or pulling in all directions.

In sports, the coach decides where each players will play, what, for the good of the team. It is not about all the individual players telling the coach they want to be the star. Why have a coach? Relative morality does not need a coach, since the team will never be good. America was most united during and after WWII when all sacrificed for the needs of the team. The young men needed to leave the comfort of home and face terror for the team. This was not their first choice, but it needed to be done to win.

The coach will will place ego limits on all the players, so they can fit into the machine and win the championship. Objectivity is based on which system wins for the entire team. Any narrow minded and self serving system might be able to win for the individual; rig the system. The challenge is to set up a system that may not seem to optimize all the individuals, until you win the championship and then everyone is boosted up another level. After WWII, the USA was feeling the pride of being a champion and this allowed team spirit, until relative morality started to infiltrate, once again; every man for themself.

Liberalism, which is based on relative morality, always adds to the deficit. Deficits are a good litmus test, since the best moral systems are also the most cost effective in terms of material, physical, emotional and psychological costs. The drunk or drug addict has their own relative morality that justifies this choice. It may be fun for some, but it has a large social costs for the group. which include the sober people who need to mop up the mess. If a moral system did not allow this excess, the cost would down.

It is that simple. On cannot depend on subjective standards that may benefit one or just a subgroup while adding cost to the larger team. This is immoral; inefficient and wasteful, adding objective costs.

 

[Koldo]

Because something created by an external agent can't simply exist in the mind.

Why not?

I don't see such as God as having a "mind" in the human sense, so no it doesn't exist in God's mind, but as something built into the created world like any feature built into a computer programme or game.

Clearly such a "feature" cannot be dependent on the human mind which is good enough for me. Whether it is dependent on 'the mind of god' is basically just a semantic and conceptual exercise regarding an entity neither of us believe in so there is little way to progress.

Also, remember you are using a very different definition of objective morality than most people. Generally the term is used to refer to objective (i.e. not personal and subjective) standards of right and wrong.

Do you agree a God could create such standards? (for example: blasphemy and pre-marital sex are objectively immoral)

No, that would just be calling God's own personal and subjective standards as objective.

 

[Augustus]

Why not?

Because it's logically impossible that something purposely created and maintained by a non-human only exists in the human mind.

No, that would just be calling God's own personal and subjective standards as objective.

You seem not to conceptually understand how a world created by a God differs from our own.

If God created the world, created the rules for the world, and created everything in the world for a purpose, then of course these rules are objective for those within the world (God is external to that world).

You seem to be treating the god as no different from a person rather than an infinite and all powerful being who is the reason everything exists. If his standards are not objective, then literally nothing can be objective.

The speed of light would be subjective as it is just God's own personal and subjective standard. Water freezing at 0c would be subjective as it's just God's personal and subjective standard, etc.

 

[Koldo]

Ideally, they wouldn't.

What...
Nevertheless, whether something protests is of no consequence to determine if it it is a slave...

Nothing intentionally hidden. Instead of active/passive, does dominant/submissive work better?

Sure... But how is the plant dominant towards the air?

Agreed. Still, there are no slate hammers because ?? And ivy is a bad choice for a garden next to your neighbor's grass because ??

Because they don't make good hammers.
And because ivy ends up taking over the areas where grass is.

It seems like you are suggesting that whatever is more destructive towards the other is hierarchically superior... Is that the case?

Slaves don't have choice, the water doesn't have choice.

But what defines a slave is not that slaves don't have a choice. It is that they are forced to obey, and the word 'obey' only makes sense when we are talking about beings with conscious minds.

OK. That's a fair way of describing what I mean. Thank you,

Nothing? So when you look in a mirror at the parallel image of yourself, it has nothing to do with how you look? No truth to it at all? Nothing. Come on.

OK, I appreciate that. Maybe we can talk about that at some point.

Truth relates to propositions, as in whether they accurately represent the facts.

Let's presume that God uttered that the divine order is so and so. If that matched with what the divine order is de facto, then that would be the truth.

Is my image in the mirror the truth? I would say that depending on whether it is an accurate representation of me, I would say that it is a true image as in an authentic representation of me. But it is not in itself the truth. The bigger problem though is that you are saying that an analogical representation of the divine order being materialized onto our world equals to conveying the truth. But analogies are not an accurate representation of anything. To convey truth through a representation God would have to mirror the divine perflectly, and not through an analogical representation.

 

[Koldo]

Because it's logically impossible that something purposely created and maintained by a non-human only exists in the human mind.

I didn't think strictly of 'human mind' when I asked that, but putting that aside, I don't see why not.
I will exemplify: Right now God could make Random Joe have a vision (akin to a mirage). The content is irrelevant, what is relevant is that such vision would exist in Random Joe's mind and nowhere else. It would therefore be "something purposely created and maintained by a non-human" that "only exists in the human mind".

You seem not to conceptually understand how a world created by a God differs from our own.

If God created the world, created the rules for the world, and created everything in the world for a purpose, then of course these rules are objective for those within the world (God is external to that world).

You seem to be treating the god as no different from a person rather than an infinite and all powerful being who is the reason everything exists. If his standards are not objective, then literally nothing can be objective.

The speed of light would be subjective as it is just God's own personal and subjective standard. Water freezing at 0c would be subjective as it's just God's personal and subjective standard, etc.

The speed of light and the water freezing temperature are characteristics of the physical universe. Like height, weight, size... But morality is not. You can check the truth value of a claim about the water's freezing temperature with a termometer. It is a measurable property of the physical. How would anyone, even God, check the truth claim about what is moral? You are presuming that God could, in principle, assign truth value to morality claims in any given world, but since morality is not a physical property it can't be assigned to worlds per se.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't think strictly of 'human mind' when I asked that, but putting that aside, I don't see why not.
I will exemplify: Right now God could make Random Joe have a vision (akin to a mirage). The content is irrelevant, what is relevant is that such vision would exist in Random Joe's mind and nowhere else. It would therefore be "something purposely created and maintained by a non-human" that "only exists in the human mind".

The God is obviously also aware of it, so exists in the "mind" of the God

The speed of light and the water freezing temperature are characteristics of the physical universe. Like height, weight, size... But morality is not. You can check the truth value of a claim about the water's freezing temperature with a termometer. It is a measurable property of the physical. How would anyone, even God, check the truth claim about what is moral? You are presuming that God could, in principle, assign truth value to morality claims in any given world, but since morality is not a physical property it can't be assigned to worlds per se.

You aren't following the logical consequence of the world being created and maintained by a God.This is the problem with your whole argument.

All laws of nature are God's personal and subjective standard and could change at any time if he willed it.

The reading in the thermometer is God's personal and subjective standard. He could choose to make is show whatever he liked.

Your ability to even conceptualise what a physical property is is God's personal and subjective standard and he could remove the distinction between the abstract and physical so as it would be impossible to conceptualise the difference.

Everything that exists exists only because the God wanted it to that way, and there is no difference between the abstract and the concrete in this regard.

It is logically impossible that physical laws are more objective than moral laws when they are all just different features created by the same designer.

 

[Koldo]

The God is obviously also aware of it, so exists in the "mind" of the God

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

You aren't following the logical consequence of the world being created and maintained by a God.This is the problem with your whole argument.

All laws of nature are God's personal and subjective standard and could change at any time if he willed it.

The reading in the thermometer is God's personal and subjective standard. He could choose to make is show whatever he liked.

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.

Your ability to even conceptualise what a physical property is is God's personal and subjective standard and he could remove the distinction between the abstract and physical so as it would be impossible to conceptualise the difference.

Everything that exists exists only because the God wanted it to that way, and there is no difference between the abstract and the concrete in this regard.

It is logically impossible that physical laws are more objective than moral laws when they are all just different features created by the same designer.

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.
If the second or the third, it has no bearing on my argument.

 

[dybmh]

What...
Nevertheless, whether something protests is of no consequence to determine if it it is a slave...

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

Sure... But how is the plant dominant towards the air?

Stomata

Do Plants Breathe? | Wisconsin Pollinators.

Because they don't make good hammers.
And because ivy ends up taking over the areas where grass is.

Tada! Hierarchy!

It seems like you are suggesting that whatever is more destructive towards the other is hierarchically superior... Is that the case?

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

But what defines a slave is not that slaves don't have a choice. It is that they are forced to obey, and the word 'obey' only makes sense when we are talking about beings with conscious minds.

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

Truth relates to propositions, as in whether they accurately represent the facts.

Agreed.

Let's presume that God uttered that the divine order is so and so. If that matched with what the divine order is de facto, then that would be the truth.

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?

Is my image in the mirror the truth? I would say that depending on whether it is an accurate representation of me, I would say that it is a true image as in an authentic representation of me. But it is not in itself the truth.

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.

The bigger problem though is that you are saying that an analogical representation of the divine order being materialized onto our world equals to conveying the truth.

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.

Rigid caste is not fair >>> reality isn't fair >>> rigid caste is moral because unfairness is true.

Ready to discuss how truth is objectively moral?

 

[Ella S.]

The speed of light and the water freezing temperature are characteristics of the physical universe. Like height, weight, size... But morality is not. You can check the truth value of a claim about the water's freezing temperature with a termometer. It is a measurable property of the physical. How would anyone, even God, check the truth claim about what is moral? You are presuming that God could, in principle, assign truth value to morality claims in any given world, but since morality is not a physical property it can't be assigned to worlds per se.

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.