Replacing Religious Morality

[henryp]

When you said yes, (to the first part) do you believe the laws of mathematics are subjective, because they were made up by God? That's an interesting position. I still think it's underestimating the nature of such a being, and I'm not sure it would change anything, but an interesting idea.

Its not under-estimation or over-estimation. Its the nature of objectivity - if something is determined by a conscious entity's will or opinion, then that thing is subjective. So, if mathematical laws were made up by god, then they would be subjective. Its that simple.

We assume for argument God is.
God creates the existence that we are in.
God creates the laws of mathematics for the existence we are in.
You say the laws of mathematics are subjective.

That's our recap.

The big question here, is: are you governed by those laws of mathematics? I'd assume you couldn't defy physics or make 2+2 = -9. So their subjectivity doesn't have any impact on their authority over you. You are governed by them whether you think they are objective or subjective. They are truth to the reality of your existence.

[genkaus]

Which requires the capacity of freewill, since a forced choice is no choice at all.

Only in the sense of freedom from any other entity's will.

---

We assume for argument God is.
God creates the existence that we are in.
God creates the laws of mathematics for the existence we are in.
You say the laws of mathematics are subjective.

That's our recap.

The big question here, is: are you governed by those laws of mathematics? I'd assume you couldn't defy physics or make 2+2 = -9. So their subjectivity doesn't have any impact on their authority over you. You are governed by them whether you think they are objective or subjective. They are truth to the reality of your existence.

Truth that can be changed on a whim and a prayer - but yeah, truth. So?

[MindForgedManacle]

Which requires the capacity of freewill, since a forced choice is no choice at all.

For such a short post, this demands so many response questions:

What do you mean by free-will? If you mean it in the libertarian sense, then there are very good philosophical and scientific reasons to think that such a view is incoherent, or if it is coherent despite all its flaws, that is not the free-will we might have. In fact, 'free-will' is a bad name for this. 'Free choice' might be a better one.

The idea that without having libertarian free-will there is no moral responsibility gained more traction in the Enlightenment. I think it's a confused view, even if it's (I admit) intuitively appealing to an extent.

---

What you have not defended is moral facts, if you are going to state that there is an objective moral standard then you have show us what are the properties of right and wrong, good or evil, you have to show us how those properties could be measured and observed and by what means they can be measured or observed.

And this is where having read my post will have come in handy. "Right" and "wrong" don't have any properties, nor are right and wrong, strictly speaking, intrinsic properties of events. They're imbued properties by minds on actions.
Does this mean that morality is therefore subjective and arbitrary? No. Truth is entirely dependent on the existence of minds as well. All theories of truth I know of necessitate a mind, thus truth is dependent on minds. Yet I doubt you would say something like "All truth is subjective.", which is self-refuting.

Now, as for my 'objective moral standard', I've already stated that since I'm a utilitarian consequentialist, my standard of determining whether or not something is moral or immoral is whether or not it is conducive to a conscious entity's well-being (both physical and mental). You can't ask "How do you know negatively impacting well-being is immoral" because I'm merely defining what I mean by 'moral' and 'immoral'. To do so would be like asking Plato "How do you know that knowledge is a justified, true belief?" "Justified true belief" is what Plato means by knowledge, so it is a fallacy to ask that.

As for how impact to well-being can be observed, it would seem rather obvious for physical well-being. Mental is a bit harder to ascertain, but is well within the realm of psychology and neuroscience.

If something has no measurable properties and you cannot observe it then its status as a fact becomes iffy to say the least.

Which is why my case is neither.

[henryp]

Which requires the capacity of freewill, since a forced choice is no choice at all.

Only in the sense of freedom from any other entity's will.

---

We assume for argument God is.
God creates the existence that we are in.
God creates the laws of mathematics for the existence we are in.
You say the laws of mathematics are subjective.

That's our recap.

The big question here, is: are you governed by those laws of mathematics? I'd assume you couldn't defy physics or make 2+2 = -9. So their subjectivity doesn't have any impact on their authority over you. You are governed by them whether you think they are objective or subjective. They are truth to the reality of your existence.

Truth that can be changed on a whim and a prayer - but yeah, truth. So?

So you're governed by the laws, subjective, whim, whatever. That is your reality. God makes 1+1=2 then 1+1=2. So it's really only 'subjective' from the God's perspective. From your perspective, whatever a God would 'whim' would be your objective truth. Of course this is mostly just silly semantics.

But the important part is that God has the authority over the existence which he created. Whether it is 1+1 = 2, or Human life has worth. It doesn't matter whether we listen to God. The rules of our existence don't change because we don't believe in them or disagree with them.

Again, God as a concept is nonsense, but if he were real, his authority over right and wrong in this existence wouldn't be up for debate. There's no reason that would be any less real than gravity, no?

[Lion IRC]

Humans are not animals....

When did we stop being animals?

[MindForgedManacle]

He's saying we're not the same as other animals (you conveniently cut out the part of his post where he explained), in the sense that we have introspection, reasoning and such.

[Lion IRC]

No. It clearly says "are not animals"

[genkaus]

So you're governed by the laws, subjective, whim, whatever. That is your reality. God makes 1+1=2 then 1+1=2. So it's really only 'subjective' from the God's perspective. From your perspective, whatever a God would 'whim' would be your objective truth. Of course this is mostly just silly semantics.

But the important part is that God has the authority over the existence which he created. Whether it is 1+1 = 2, or Human life has worth. It doesn't matter whether we listen to God. The rules of our existence don't change because we don't believe in them or disagree with them.

Again, God as a concept is nonsense, but if he were real, his authority over right and wrong in this existence wouldn't be up for debate. There's no reason that would be any less real than gravity, no?

Here's the reason why the objective/subjective distinction is more than just semantics and not just a matter of perspective.

If god exists the way he is described, then everything is existence is subjective - i.e. determined by is will - and therefore, subject to alteration on a whim. Our agreement - or even judgment - never enters the picture. If the rules were objective, we could figure them out - we could figure out why things work in a particular way and reliably use that understanding in future judgment. We'd expect things to act consistently and not change arbitrarily. We'd expect them to measure up to the standards of logic and rationality - because that is how objectivity works. But, since they are subjective, all that goes right out the window.

---

Humans are not animals....

When did we stop being animals?

He's saying we're not the same as other animals (you conveniently cut out the part of his post where he explained), in the sense that we have introspection, reasoning and such.

No. It clearly says "are not animals"

I'm flattered. I didn't expect to be quote-mined before I was famous.

[Mothonis]

So you're governed by the laws, subjective, whim, whatever. That is your reality. God makes 1+1=2 then 1+1=2. So it's really only 'subjective' from the God's perspective. From your perspective, whatever a God would 'whim' would be your objective truth. Of course this is mostly just silly semantics.

But the important part is that God has the authority over the existence which he created. Whether it is 1+1 = 2, or Human life has worth. It doesn't matter whether we listen to God. The rules of our existence don't change because we don't believe in them or disagree with them.

Again, God as a concept is nonsense, but if he were real, his authority over right and wrong in this existence wouldn't be up for debate. There's no reason that would be any less real than gravity, no?

Here's the reason why the objective/subjective distinction is more than just semantics and not just a matter of perspective.

If god exists the way he is described, then everything is existence is subjective - i.e. determined by is will - and therefore, subject to alteration on a whim. Our agreement - or even judgment - never enters the picture. If the rules were objective, we could figure them out - we could figure out why things work in a particular way and reliably use that understanding in future judgment. We'd expect things to act consistently and not change arbitrarily. We'd expect them to measure up to the standards of logic and rationality - because that is how objectivity works. But, since they are subjective, all that goes right out the window.

---

No. It clearly says "are not animals"

I'm flattered. I didn't expect to be quote-mined before I was famous.

Dude you got 30 rep, your famous here.The theist here are extreamly dishonest.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...What do you mean by free-will?

Since I do not believe in physical closure, I mean that the will can freely act upon physical events without be dependent upon them. If the will is a product of the causal chain then it cannot truly be free. But in answering your question I don't want to drift too far from the original post.

The title of the OP is "Replacing Religious Morality" asks whether there is something there to take its place. By and large the response has been that "ve already got vone. Oh, yez is a very nice." The suggestion being that evolved empathy and innate moral conscience pre-date religion. That's really just pure speculation and in my view, in agreement with genkaus, that neither sufficiently qualify for a moral system.