Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[Alien]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

Yes, that's where this could lead, and staying relative to this thread, morality still wouldn't be independent of opinion.

However, I'm confident that it'll be seen as part of god's nature rather than god's opinion, but that brings up a whole host of problems itself.

I'd go with it being part of God's (unchanging) nature. Which problems does that bring up?

[Outrider]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

What if God doesn't change?

Rather depends. If a god chooses not to change then it's still dependent upon that change.

If the god is not capable of change then: a) it's questionable if it's actually a god, given limits to its capacity (a different argument, I appreciate) and b) that doesn't change the morality's dependence upon the god.

If I have a sensor that reacts to green light but not to red, it's state is still dependent upon what light I shine upon it, even if I only have green light bulbs.

O.

[Andy]

So to 'demonstrating moral facts'.

Yes in a number of posts I have made it clear that the method we go about discovering OM will depend on the account we give of it. As a theist I have given an account of OM rooted in God and I outline this in reply 196. As this account derives its understanding of OM from the flourishing of conscious beings, defined in relation to God’s purpose then we discover moral truth by improving our understanding of our flourishing. This is partly something we do through reason and observation in relation to the physical and psychological facts that allows people to live rich fulfilling lives and the virtues of character necessary to enable these, and partly by deepening our experience of God to gain an insight into his character and purposes. This, like all fields of human discovery will of course be gradual and prone to error and revision in our understanding.

So it seems to me that you 'determine moral facts' by judging an actions to see if it delivers 'flourishing of conscious beings'.

I'm still not seeing the leap to objective?

So why is "flourishing of conscious beings" good? Are you a vegetarian?

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

I've not read through all of DT's posts since I have not been around so much as usual, so I will leave him to come back to you on that.

You only had to read what he's stated in the nest of quotes. I've put it in bold.

I would sort of agree with you, but would rather put it that we should be able to determine that it is good without invoking God rather than to show that it is good.

Horses for courses. Whichever.

There are things I know / have determined to be true, but I am unable to show this to you. Examples include there being a set of earphones on my desk, me having no shoes on, my having gone for a walk with my wife, son and daughter-in-law last night. I don't need to be able to show anyone else that those are true before I am able to believe them myself.

All the things you mention have the potential to be shown, but we've moved to determine now anyway.

So let's go there. Tell me how you determine that your core values (human/conscious flourishing/well being/whatever it is etc.) should be valued without invoking god. Turn the is into an ought.

[Alien]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

What if God doesn't change?

Rather depends. If a god chooses not to change then it's still dependent upon that change.

If the god is not capable of change then: a) it's questionable if it's actually a god, given limits to its capacity (a different argument, I appreciate).

Why, if his nature is perfect, would it not being able to change from perfect be seen a problem?

and b) that doesn't change the morality's dependence upon the god.

I wasn't claiming otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely any action is change? If something is perfect than actions are impossible

[Andy]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

Yes, that's where this could lead, and staying relative to this thread, morality still wouldn't be independent of opinion.

However, I'm confident that it'll be seen as part of god's nature rather than god's opinion, but that brings up a whole host of problems itself.

I'd go with it being part of God's (unchanging) nature. Which problems does that bring up?

We went there before with god having no free will, something you made a right pigs ear of. This isn't a case of god choosing to do what is morally right, it's having no option but to do what is morally right, meaning that there is nothing that god does that isn't morally right. This means this universe should exist, that it should exist exactly as it does, that it's the best possible one to exist, that there is nothing that happens in it that shouldn't and that there is nothing that happens that is morally wrong. Consequently, all contrast is removed between right and wrong as only right exists and morality becomes meaningless.

[Alien]

So to 'demonstrating moral facts'.

Yes in a number of posts I have made it clear that the method we go about discovering OM will depend on the account we give of it. As a theist I have given an account of OM rooted in God and I outline this in reply 196. As this account derives its understanding of OM from the flourishing of conscious beings, defined in relation to God’s purpose then we discover moral truth by improving our understanding of our flourishing. This is partly something we do through reason and observation in relation to the physical and psychological facts that allows people to live rich fulfilling lives and the virtues of character necessary to enable these, and partly by deepening our experience of God to gain an insight into his character and purposes. This, like all fields of human discovery will of course be gradual and prone to error and revision in our understanding.

So it seems to me that you 'determine moral facts' by judging an actions to see if it delivers 'flourishing of conscious beings'.

I'm still not seeing the leap to objective?

So why is "flourishing of conscious beings" good? Are you a vegetarian?

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

I've not read through all of DT's posts since I have not been around so much as usual, so I will leave him to come back to you on that.

You only had to read what he's stated in the nest of quotes. I've put it in bold.

Ah right, got you. If I have understood DT correctly, he is saying that OM can only be rooted in God's purpose (nature?). I agree. If we recognise that OM exists, then the only valid explanation is that it is rooted in God's nature. It has to be something transcendent and the only valid transcendent thing which fits the bill is God. If you can think of anything else, please say.

I would sort of agree with you, but would rather put it that we should be able to determine that it is good without invoking God rather than to show that it is good.

Horses for courses. Whichever.

OK. Just trying to be accurate.

There are things I know / have determined to be true, but I am unable to show this to you. Examples include there being a set of earphones on my desk, me having no shoes on, my having gone for a walk with my wife, son and daughter-in-law last night. I don't need to be able to show anyone else that those are true before I am able to believe them myself.

All the things you mention have the potential to be shown, but we've moved to determine now anyway.

So let's go there. Tell me how you determine that your core values (human/conscious flourishing/well being/whatever it is etc.) should be valued without invoking god. Turn the is into an ought.

I'd go with William Lane Craig and say that our apprehension of objective morality is akin to our apprehension of things like minds outside our own. We can't prove it all the way (since, unless there is an original cause/ground) it is an infinite regress, yet there seems to be no good reason to think otherwise. We do here seem to be in general agreement that human flourishing, at least in a general sense, is good. Some of our atheist friends seem to be saying this here (or, at least, the flourishing of sentient beings), but they would seem to have no firm grounds for this apart from really, really liking the idea or wanting it to be true. For the Christian theist, the general flourishing of human beings being good finds its source in us being in the image of God and loved by him.

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

[Alien]

Surely any action is change? If something is perfect than actions are impossible

Does that not depend on what is changing?

[Outrider]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

What if God doesn't change?

Rather depends. If a god chooses not to change then it's still dependent upon that change.

If the god is not capable of change then: a) it's questionable if it's actually a god, given limits to its capacity (a different argument, I appreciate).

Why, if his nature is perfect, would it not being able to change from perfect be seen a problem?

and b) that doesn't change the morality's dependence upon the god.

I wasn't claiming otherwise.

So as not to derail this topic I've transferred the other question to http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10675.0

O.

[BeRational]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely any action is change? If something is perfect than actions are impossible

Does that not depend on what is changing?

Don't see how. X has acted then it has changed. If you think there is a way where action does not lead to change explain how.

[Alien]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

Yes, that's where this could lead, and staying relative to this thread, morality still wouldn't be independent of opinion.

However, I'm confident that it'll be seen as part of god's nature rather than god's opinion, but that brings up a whole host of problems itself.

I'd go with it being part of God's (unchanging) nature. Which problems does that bring up?

We went there before with god having no free will, something you made a right pigs ear of. This isn't a case of god choosing to do what is morally right, it's having no option but to do what is morally right, meaning that there is nothing that god does that isn't morally right. This means this universe should exist, that it should exist exactly as it does, that it's the best possible one to exist, that there is nothing that happens in it that shouldn't and that there is nothing that happens that is morally wrong. Consequently, all contrast is removed between right and wrong as only right exists and morality becomes meaningless.

Hold your horses. Firstly, we need to define what free will is. Nothing external to God, in the Christian understanding of things, forces him to do anything. Therefore, he is totally free.

If mankind has some sort of freedom as well, then, yes, this universe can be the best possible one which could exist, but what do we mean by "best". Measured how? If best means "the universe which leads the optimal number of people into a saving relationship with God", then, yes, I could go with that. It would still mean that some things are evil though, wouldn't it. Such acts might be ones which, if people didn't do them, would have increased the number of people coming into a saving relationship with God.

[Alien]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

I was asking about it being good, not just useful.

[Alien]

Surely any action is change? If something is perfect than actions are impossible

Does that not depend on what is changing?

Don't see how. X has acted then it has changed. If you think there is a way where action does not lead to change explain how.

Hang on. If God acts, how does that thereby make him morally inferior to what he was before?

[Andy]

So let's go there. Tell me how you determine that your core values (human/conscious flourishing/well being/whatever it is etc.) should be valued without invoking god. Turn the is into an ought.

I'd go with William Lane Craig and say that our apprehension of objective morality is akin to our apprehension of things like minds outside our own. We can't prove it all the way (since, unless there is an original cause/ground) it is an infinite regress, yet there seems to be no good reason to think otherwise. We do here seem to be in general agreement that human flourishing, at least in a general sense, is good. Some of our atheist friends seem to be saying this here (or, at least, the flourishing of sentient beings), but they would seem to have no firm grounds for this apart from really, really liking the idea or wanting it to be true. For the Christian theist, the general flourishing of human beings being good finds its source in us being in the image of God and loved by him.

So basically, when I asked you to do it without invoking god, you can't? So as I've said aplenty, your argument for OM has only ever been circular.

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Well isn't that the whole point of the subjective view, that it's from their own standpoint and that they can't point to anything external to themselves to conclude that it's morally good? It's their value and there's no evidence to point to that value having objective worth. Personally, I don't think it's right or wrong for humans to flourish, I just want them to, probably most simply because I am one. I'm under no pretence that I can turn my is into an ought.

[BeRational]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

I was asking about it being good, not just useful.

It is good because that is the label that we give to useful things.

It is not in some way objectively good, just good because we place a value on survival.

It's that simple.

[Nearly Sane]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

I was asking about it being good, not just useful.

It also isn't what all atheists are saying. Indeed, the flourishing of conscious beings as it was originally phrased is in DT's post, and I am sure you have managed to read enough to know he is a theist. I suggest you reread the thread because jakswan, an atheist btw challenged it as being mere opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely any action is change? If something is perfect than actions are impossible

Does that not depend on what is changing?

Don't see how. X has acted then it has changed. If you think there is a way where action does not lead to change explain how.

Hang on. If God acts, how does that thereby make him morally inferior to what he was before?

I haven't said anything about morally inferior, merely about changing. You were positing an unchanging god, I am saying action leads to change. Given you seem to think you have a perfect entity, I am suggesting the concept of change is alien to the concept of perfection.

[Andy]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

Yes, that's where this could lead, and staying relative to this thread, morality still wouldn't be independent of opinion.

However, I'm confident that it'll be seen as part of god's nature rather than god's opinion, but that brings up a whole host of problems itself.

I'd go with it being part of God's (unchanging) nature. Which problems does that bring up?

We went there before with god having no free will, something you made a right pigs ear of. This isn't a case of god choosing to do what is morally right, it's having no option but to do what is morally right, meaning that there is nothing that god does that isn't morally right. This means this universe should exist, that it should exist exactly as it does, that it's the best possible one to exist, that there is nothing that happens in it that shouldn't and that there is nothing that happens that is morally wrong. Consequently, all contrast is removed between right and wrong as only right exists and morality becomes meaningless.

Hold your horses. Firstly, we need to define what free will is. Nothing external to God, in the Christian understanding of things, forces him to do anything. Therefore, he is totally free.

We did, we went over it. You went and pulled out the OED, was found wanting as god is constrained by the necessity of doing what is morally right.

EDIT: Oh, and from what I remember of the discussion (might have been purged now) is that you had to ignore what you normally mean by free will and invent a different one make it so that god could be said to have it. As you've said above, you think god has free will because nothing external to god forces him to do anything, yet us humans do have things external to us that can... but we apparently still have free will, just a different sort. So really, it's redundant that god has no external constraints because he could still have free will with them. So which is it?

If mankind has some sort of freedom as well, then, yes, this universe can be the best possible one which could exist,

Mankind doesn't if god doesn't.

but what do we mean by "best". Measured how?

Well we're discussing morality, and you think it's objective, so you should have some inkling as to how to measure that.

If best means "the universe which leads the optimal number of people into a saving relationship with God", then, yes, I could go with that. It would still mean that some things are evil though, wouldn't it. Such acts might be ones which, if people didn't do them, would have increased the number of people coming into a saving relationship with God.

We're discussing morality. If god can only do what's right, then it's morally the best it can be.

[Nearly Sane]

One caveat to Andy's post, it is the best possible universe if god is also omnipotent and omniscient, though it would have to be to be acting morally correctly by nature.

For an omni god this is the only universe that can exist and all actions are bound to happen. Which makes free will and right and wrong entirely meaningless.

[Andy]

For an omni god this is the only universe that can exist and all actions are bound to happen. Which makes free will and right and wrong entirely meaningless.

Nut, meet shell.

[Alien]

So let's go there. Tell me how you determine that your core values (human/conscious flourishing/well being/whatever it is etc.) should be valued without invoking god. Turn the is into an ought.

I'd go with William Lane Craig and say that our apprehension of objective morality is akin to our apprehension of things like minds outside our own. We can't prove it all the way (since, unless there is an original cause/ground) it is an infinite regress, yet there seems to be no good reason to think otherwise. We do here seem to be in general agreement that human flourishing, at least in a general sense, is good. Some of our atheist friends seem to be saying this here (or, at least, the flourishing of sentient beings), but they would seem to have no firm grounds for this apart from really, really liking the idea or wanting it to be true. For the Christian theist, the general flourishing of human beings being good finds its source in us being in the image of God and loved by him.

So basically, when I asked you to do it without invoking god, you can't? So as I've said aplenty, your argument for OM has only ever been circular.

No, you missed my, "We can't prove it all the way (since, unless there is an original cause/ground) it is an infinite regress, yet there seems to be no good reason to think otherwise." You have also missed/ignored the definition of objective morality, i.e. that OM exists if there is at least one example of something being morally right or morally wrong independent of how many people think it so. A number of people here, not just Christians, have said that TACTDJFF is (always) morally wrong, though they then go on to be much more open to the possibility of their being wrong than on any other moral question I have seen. If they do indeed think that torturing a child to death just for fun (that being the complete motivation) then they are thereby agreeing that OM does indeed exist (since it is the one example we need), though they they go on to contradict themselves by saying that OM does not exist.

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Well isn't that the whole point of the subjective view, that it's from their own standpoint and that they can't point to anything external to themselves to conclude that it's morally good? It's their value and there's no evidence to point to that value having objective worth. Personally, I don't think it's right or wrong for humans to flourish, I just want them to, probably most simply because I am one. I'm under no pretence that I can turn my is into an ought.

I continue to look forward to hearing from those who think that the flourishing of humans/sentient beings is morally good why they think it so.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether there is any "ought" in life. Do you think I ought not use the term "ought"? If you think that the term "ought" has some meaning, please do explain why you think it has.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

For an omni god this is the only universe that can exist and all actions are bound to happen. Which makes free will and right and wrong entirely meaningless.

Nut, meet shell.

Note, one could still have some kind of god thing that did not have teh omnis but I think that cuases other problems in that then it would be impossible for that god to be linked to objective morality.

[Alien]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

I was asking about it being good, not just useful.

It is good because that is the label that we give to useful things.

It is not in some way objectively good, just good because we place a value on survival.

It's that simple.

So defeating the Nazis was merely "useful"? In your opinion "gay marriage" is merely "useful". Avoidance of unnecessary pain in patients dying of cancer is merely "useful"? Stopping the physical abuse of children is merely "useful"?

Seriously?

[BeRational]

Alien

I'd be interested to know why our atheist friends think that human flourishing is morally good (apart from wanting it to be so). What do you think?

Simple, evolution has found this idea useful in keeping us alive to pass on our genes.

There is no more to it than that.

I was asking about it being good, not just useful.

It is good because that is the label that we give to useful things.

It is not in some way objectively good, just good because we place a value on survival.

It's that simple.

So defeating the Nazis was merely "useful"? In your opinion "gay marriage" is merely "useful". Avoidance of unnecessary pain in patients dying of cancer is merely "useful"? Stopping the physical abuse of children is merely "useful"?

Seriously?

Yes.

Do you not think it useful?

Seriously?