On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, there are plenty of different moral standards.  In that sense, morality is entirely subjective, but I'd say it was the practice and application of morality that is subjective.  We often find ourselves pointing out the things we find to be wrong about other peoples moral systems or moral standards.  If it were morality that were subjective, and not -peoples moral appraisals/practices/application- that were subjective, then such a criticism would be insensible.

If, for example, I say rape is bad (mmmkay, lol ) and someone else says "maybe not" or "it's good" I doubt that we're having a simple difference of opinion.

[robvalue]

It's all about defining what the word means. As with many topics, that's the whole debate, but it often gets skipped. People just assume it means what they interpret it to mean.

Morality is nothing without an observer. It's just a value judgement of reality. Without an emotion to guide it, everything is as good as everything else.

[The Grand Nudger]

I actually don't think it's about defining anything, as such.  People have and leverage morality without ever having an argument or a debate.  Sure, -in- a debate it's important, but our lives aren't debates and I don't go through a complicated internal debating process everytime I make a moral consideration.  Sure there are edge situations that we wring our hands about, considering the balance of competing moral imperatives...but even there, we aren't defining those things, for the most part they come pre-packaged. I;d say that there is a core to all of the varying moral systems and pre-packaged assumptions that is so ubiquitous as to be categorical. That no matter what our moral considerations and definitions may be, we are attempting to do or avoid some common thing in all of it. We do the good, we avoid the bad, or, at least...we try...lol, no matter what we put in either category.

[robvalue]

Sure, I mean in a debate. Morality is, after all, about modelling behaviour rather than anything else.

[Tonus]

Sure, a theist can simply announce that morality is subjective, and there's no problem to be had.

I think that depends on their "rule book." Many Christians insist that good and evil are based on what god commands and that god himself is exempt from judgment because he transcends the morality that he imposes upon humans. Thus morality is objective for humans even if it's subjective for god. The problem with this approach is that the Bible has numerous passages where god specifically commands people to commit acts that are 'objectively' wicked for humans. I don't think you can square that by saying "but god commanded it." If the act in question is objectively wicked when performed by a human, god's permission does not change that. And in all of those examples, god could have taken the desired action himself, so there are no mitigating circumstances.

If we can reason out why an action is right or wrong, then we do not need god to tell us. In which case, the ten commandments and the rest of the law given to the Israelites were not a moral guide that supersedes human reason. They were simply a list of laws like any other organized society eventually creates. Which is sensible if we read through the list of laws. Yes, nearly every government makes murder against the law. How many of them make working on the Sabbath a capital crime? How many forbid the boiling of baby goats in their mother's milk?

[The Grand Nudger]

All societies have examples of batshit laws.  Used to be you had to disassemble your motor buggy and hide it in a bush lest you scared the ponies. 


I've always wondered if it was actually frightened -horses- that this law seeked to protect.....or if they were a convenient scapegoat for frightened humans whose pleasant picture of the world was upset by carts that were pulled through the either by nothing, lol. Similar to the goatboiling law. What was the effect that seeing that -had- on whomever made it a stricture? What did it make them think of, what was the source of revulsion? Also, who -did- that, who boiled goats in their mothers milk?

[FallentoReason]

A theist can also answer "neither".

I'm well aware, and I've shared my thoughts on that already. Though, that's not what Ham is talking about, purely due to the fact that he's unable to conceptualize the dilemma the right way.

Again, you have a myopic view of god and good. Not every god botherer does or has.

We have one right here advocating for this view. I've never met anyone who's thought otherwise, and I was a Christian for 6 years (and a non-practising catholic growing up).

Or they can remind someone that their gods are capricious and fickle, that they have no relationship to the good.

Can't even think of a contemporary monotheistic religion that believes that.

Or that they are beyond petty human concepts such -as- good.

Again, can't say I've encountered such a thing, despite having done philosophy of religion.

Or that the good is neither loved by god because it it good or good because it is loved by god...but that the good -is- god.

This is roughly the only thing I've actually heard. And it's not a great explanation. It's still sort of riding the vibes of the 'trivial' horn - where something is good because god says so - since god is arbitrarily good.

The possible -neither- answers are limited only by the varying god concepts that people do and have believed in...and those aren't limited at all, despite some theists™ pulling the highlander routine at a fundamanetal and conceptual level.

Fair, yet still lacking a sound justification for 'neither'.

As has already been pointed out. It's a false dilemma that -some- theists find compelling. There's a checklist, though, for which theists will find it compelling.

1. Don't give a shit that the argument structure is invalid.
2. Has a myopic view of good.
3. Has a myopic view of god.

Given the above, the checklist is actually the one of myopic proportions.

[Edwardo Piet]

A dichotomy involving gods can't apply if there are no gods.

You wouldn't get taken seriously in an academic environment. This sort of response doesn't engage with the dilemma in any meaningful way, just like 'squirrel' won't either. You see, philosophy isn't about seeing the world through *your* eyes. Understand that this argument isn't meant for *you*. What it's asking of you is to get in the theist's shoes and think through the horns. If you actually stopped being stubborn for once you'd realise we would have something to agree about, only IF you actually bothered to philosophise and reach a conclusion.

Before I engage in the dilemma I have just been trying to get a consistent answer from you regarding true and false dichotomies. Your inconsistent answers and self-contradiction and unwillingness to admit you're wrong is embarrassing. Why not just say "Oh you're right, it is a false dichotomy, because the answer "neither" had been given, I'd never thought of that."? You've already said that you know what a false dichotomy is and that the answer "neither" can be given, so then why do you keep insisting it's not a false dichotomy? You're contradicting yourself. Either you know what a false dichotomy is or you don't. In order to debate you have to admit when you're wrong about something. You're more interested in your pride than in debate. I'll address the dilemma when I've discovered that the person I'm addressing is capable of admitting to their own self-contradiction rather than burying their head in the sand and doubling down on their falsity. You're more interested in saving-face than accuracy. You'd make a better politician than a philosopher.

[Tonus]

Similar to the goatboiling law.  What was the effect that seeing that -had- on whomever made it a stricture?  What did it make them think of, what was the source of revulsion?  Also, who -did- that, who boiled goats in their mothers milk?

Yeah, some of the laws sound like the writers were on a bender while they brainstormed some ideas in order to pad the run time.

And damn... how would anyone determine that the goat had been boiled in its own mother's milk? I suspect that the baby-goats-boiled-in-milk market died a pretty quick death shortly after that was introduced!

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm well aware, and I've shared my thoughts on that already. Though, that's not what Ham is talking about, purely due to the fact that he's unable to conceptualize the dilemma the right way.

Hams just informing you that it's a false dillemma.  It;s a false dillemma for Hams reason, and for any other reason that one can offer that doesn;t adhere to a or b.  Any c is sufficient to demonstrate that this is the case.

We have one right here advocating for this view. I've never met anyone who's thought otherwise, and I was a Christian for 6 years (and a non-practising catholic growing up).

You have a limited experience of faith, and are only referring to one god concept out of who knows how many. Myopic.

Can't even think of a contemporary monotheistic religion that believes that.

All three contemporary monotheistic religions are sub branches of a single conceptualization of the divine. They're all the same damned god, lol.  Myopic.

Again, can't say I've encountered such a thing, despite having done philosophy of religion.

Philosophy of -what- religions, in particular?  Myopic.

This is roughly the only thing I've actually heard. And it's not a great explanation. It's still sort of riding the vibes of the 'trivial' horn - where something is good because god says so - since god is arbitrarily good.

God does not have to say any such thing, and you're the one re-invoking the dillemma there, not the person who responds with "neither, god -is- good"

Fair, yet still lacking a sound justification for 'neither'.

By sound you mean something you agree with or falls in line with your myopic view.  This is related to your acceptance of arguments that fall below the standard of reason.  You have a misinterpretation of soundness.   Why you would even -begin- to appeal to this is beyond me, which of the horns of the dillema invoking "gods" are "sound"......?

Given the above, the checklist is actually the one of myopic proportions.

"Nuh uh, you are"............

Really?