On Moral Authorities

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry if I misunderstood. Are you saying human happiness is just one proposed goal then? [1]

I agree it is a good goal, but it is incredibly vague and qualifying it is very hard. I don't think it can be objectified in any way. [2]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

2) This is EXACTLY the point. Happiness IS living a full human life WELL. What does that mean? The answer is not easy nor perfectly clear. Arriving at a universal answer and full account of this object may even be impossible. Does this mean any discussion is pointless or that nothing at all can be ascertained about the objective reality? I don't think so. Something tells me that, merely by sharing a common humanity, we would agree on some simple and fundamental aspects of the object (and therefore, will have begun to objectify it).

I think your second point is particularly important. Most oppose the notion of objective morality because people have different opinions about that is most desirable. As they see it, if it were objective then everyone would agree on what is and is not moral. That notion is based on mistake that objectivity entails omniscience. A more relevant objection would be to deny ontological status to things, like an essential human nature, on which natural law/virtue ethics rely.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that most objections to an objective morality are more disagreement as to the sense in which a person means the term.  You'll find plenty of people willing to state -both- that sexual abuse is objectively morally wrong...while also acknowledging that morality -is- subjective.  For me, it hardly matters whether it's subjective or objective. I certainly think that sexual abuse is wrong everywhere for everyone and at all times....but if a person insists that this is "just, like, your opinion...man" then yeah, sure...why not...I'll let em have it regardless of whether or not I agree on it being just my opinion - because, after all...it -is- my opinion. OFC, after having said such a thing, I would doubt their moral agency, lol.

Too many words are wasted on subtle shifts in frames of reference.

[GrandizerII]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

2) This is EXACTLY the point. Happiness IS living a full human life WELL. What does that mean? The answer is not easy nor perfectly clear. Arriving at a universal answer and full account of this object may even be impossible. Does this mean any discussion is pointless or that nothing at all can be ascertained about the objective reality? I don't think so. Something tells me that, merely by sharing a common humanity, we would agree on some simple and fundamental aspects of the object (and therefore, will have begun to objectify it).

I think your second point is particularly important. Most oppose the notion of objective morality because people have different opinions about that is most desirable. As they see it, if it were objective then everyone would agree on what is and is not moral. That notion is based on mistake that objectivity entails omniscience. A more relevant objection would be to deny ontological status to things, like an essential human nature, on which natural law/virtue ethics rely.

Moral objectivity may not entail omniscience, but it is pointless without significant knowledge.

[Ignorant]

Then stop?

Probably for the best. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

[The Grand Nudger]

NP bud, and hey, thanks for spelling out your moral system too...at least we both know how the other approaches it even if we don't agree as to which is the better approach.

[Ignorant]

Well, in my case, the happiness of animals is very important to me too. I try and place it as high on my agenda as I can. You could say that the reason I care about animals being happy is because that makes me happy. This is ultimately true. When you boil down morality, it comes down to emotions. It is about what you want to be the case. [1] Without emotions or desires, morality makes no sense. A neutral, uncaring observer will have no opinion. This is all a tautology really; it's modelling morality rather than seeking to guide or measure it. My idea of human happiness might be so warped that anyone else would consider what I want to be horrific. [2]

Absolutely, yes. I agree living life well is important. You could in theory objectify it, but it would simply be one person's version of what it means to live life well.  It's not like measurements where it's of practical use for us to all agree on a certain system. [3]

Discussion is absolutely crucial, yes, for exactly this reason. If I/we consider a moral position to be superior, it's vitally important that every effort is made to try and explain to others why that is. [4] It's in this way that "progress" is made, and eventually societal norms are altered. [5] What is absolutely useless is to simply announce that one moral system is better than another. This achieves nothing except a feeling of self righteousness.

So indeed yes, discussing the very basics of what we are trying to achieve is incredibly important, to find as much common ground as possible. [6]

1) Well, I'd certainly say that is part of it. I would say that morality includes the struggle to reconcile what-you-want-to-be-the-case, what-you-feel, and what-is-ACTUALLY-the-case. In other words: 1) desire/will, 2) affect/emotion, and 3) knowledge/intellect

2) Indeed (see every reductio ad Hitlerum ever). The question this thread considers, then, is "On what basis can we judge the adequacy of your conception of morality?" "Is there an object about which we can approach the truth so that we can guide our actions toward a life well-lived?" I think we can certainly point to certain conceptions of human happiness or human nature and plainly and directly pronounce them so inadequate that they are simply wrong about human life. We share enough about human life, its experience and its history to have a pretty solid idea of what does not lead to good lives.

3) Well, what if it is less normative and legislative, and (embracing human individuality and freedom) more teleological and principled? For example, I would find it difficult for someone to disagree with the principle of "do and seek the good and avoid evil". Moral discourse would revolve more about what is good and true about things, the relationship between our own goodness and the goodness of other things (like other animals), and how our own individuality can participate well in and according-to those relationship... rather than a bunch of "what should be done? What should humans do? what am i supposed to do?"

4) And perhaps that begins with the recognition that "superior" actually means closer-to-the-truth-and-goodness-of-things? It could only be superior if the subjective judgments which it proposes are truer approximations of reality than other subjective judgments.

5) Dare we hope that the society itself may also be altered for the better?

6) Exactly. Imagine if public discourse was like that?

[theologian]

There's no consistent usage of the term subject or subjective that would not also apply to a gods rules, or christs rules.  So, that last part of the question "especially human rules"...there is no "especially".  Joes rules, Christs rules...both -equally- subjective rules on grounds of ownership, neither especially more-so or less-so than the other.  Obviously, you can think that christs rules are better rules, or the ones we should follow...which is the sentiment you expressed before regardless of whether or not they were quite as original as you thought them to be.  Better subjective rules.  The right set of subjective rules to follow.

Well, if Christ is God, and God created everything objective, then Christ's rules will be the objective rule.

I stand corrected in my second point.

Please help me understand your question on whose or what rules it is allowable. You are asking of whose or what rules. Doesn't it imply subjectivity, especially if your talking about human rules?

Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that God exists, that God is the source of objective morality, and that God has made clear to all his moral rules. He's also made clear that killing another human being is wrong.

In such case, clearly everyone should know that killing is wrong. Would acknowledging that killing is wrong prevent someone from killing someone regardless? Not likely, since people are known to do things they know are wrong but they do them anyway for whatever reasons.

Just a reminder, you said this:

If I follow your logic, then if I have a personal goal which includes hurting and killing other people, it follows that it is allowable to hurt or kill other people. [1]

So would it be right to conclude that, despite God, it is still allowable to kill other people just because they may have a reason to do so? [2]

If your answer is no, then the answer should hold for cases of no God as well. Because even with no God, there are still laws to abide by. Even without God, we still have a conscience that nags at us. Even without God, we still feel obligations towards ourselves and others. [3]

I said no. 1, because you have said the following:

What's arbitrary about not wanting to hurt others? It's actually a very reasonable thing to not hurt others aimlessly. [3]

So, the no. 1 is not a point from mine. It was what I have derived due to your no. 3. The reason for this is that I'm trying to derive from your point of view how morality is objective without God.

Please consider the following dilemma:

If you don't believe that nature exists in every created being and if there's no God, then your moral basis is just your personal choice which is therefore subjective.

But, if you believe that nature exists in every created being and that's the basis of morality, then we can further ask where does the nature came from? What or Who defines it? We can reasonably arrive that the Unmoved Mover, Uncaused First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Super Intelligent Being is the source of that nature, whom people call God.

So, either of the case, and if there's no God, then there can't be objective morality.

2. Since no. 1 has been said here due to the consequence of what you have said in no. 3, it follows that I'm not required to answer your no. 2.

3. If conscience is your sole basis of morality, then your basis of morality is still subjective, for conscience is subjective. Further, feeling obligated is subjective too, as feelings are subjective. So, how can there be an objective morality, without God? I still hold that if there's no God, then there can't be objective morality. Hence, it is hard for atheists to impose morality to others if they hold that there's no God, which in turn logically followed that there can be no objective basis of morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no consistent usage of the term subject or subjective that would not also apply to a gods rules, or christs rules.  So, that last part of the question "especially human rules"...there is no "especially".  Joes rules, Christs rules...both -equally- subjective rules on grounds of ownership, neither especially more-so or less-so than the other.  Obviously, you can think that christs rules are better rules, or the ones we should follow...which is the sentiment you expressed before regardless of whether or not they were quite as original as you thought them to be.  Better subjective rules.  The right set of subjective rules to follow.

Well, if Christ is God, and God created everything objective, then Christ's rules will be the objective rule.

-which would be an inconsistent usage of the terms negation.  But let lay that aside.  If god created everything objective, and it;s being objective -whetever- has to do with having been created as such by a god..could god have created these moral rules -as- objective moral rules however he chose them to be?  Say, sexual abuse was morally good...objectively?

( may as well just tell you now, if you keep providing these answers you were clearly taught as rote response...you;re going to keep falling into easily avoided pits of your own digging)

[Whateverist]

"Moral authorities" are not appointed for life. We all have our moments.

[theologian]

Well, if Christ is God, and God created everything objective, then Christ's rules will be the objective rule.

-which would be an inconsistent usage of the terms negation.  But let lay that aside.  If god created everything objective, and it;s being objective -whetever- has to do with having been created as such by a god..could god have created these moral rules -as- objective moral rules however he chose them to be?  Say, sexual abuse was morally good...objectively? [1]

( may as well just tell you now, if you keep providing these answers you were clearly taught as rote response...you;re going to keep falling into easily avoided pits of your own digging) [2]

1. No, for God is Simple Being. So, in God, His Intellect and Will are one. So, sexual abuse will be always morally wrong with God.

2. Well, if you may, please let me know how I have been inconsistent in the usage of the terms negation.

---

But I still think that you are working backwards.  Are particular actions good/bad because God says they are good/bad? [1]

Or is God only recognizing actions as good/bad because they are objectively so? [2]

If God says "action A is bad" but later orders a person to commit that act, is the latter good even though God has identified it as bad in a general sense? [3]

1. Yes

2. No

3. That can't be. I presume that misunderstanding of the general rule is the source of apparent contradiction.