Do you wish there's a god?

[Acrobat]

I'm sorry, did you just defend flying planes into buildings as religiously inspired moral behavior?  Assphincter says what?

Yes, that's exactly what I said. ::

"Now perhaps religious beliefs have some special quality to motivate people into actions, that non-religious beliefs are incapable of inspiring or replacing. Like motiving people to fly planes into building, or sacrifice their life for a worthy cause like the Civil Rights movement, or abolitionism. But the idea of such motivating capacity is exclusive to immoral actions, is more a product of your cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias than anything else."

---

I'm sorry, did you just defend flying planes into buildings as religiously inspired moral behavior?  Assphincter says what?

---

It depends on what form of moral realism you're referring to, if its akin to some form of platonic moral realism, than yes that's dependent on platonic theism.

If the requirement is only a requirement of a subset of moral realism and not of the whole class of moral realism then it isn't a requirement of moral realism.  You really suck at this thinking thing, don't you?

Judging that you accused me of defending flying planes into buildings, I don't think it's matter of poor thinking on my part, but an incapacity to read on yours.

[Angrboda]

We experience it as self-evident, as self-evident as the existence of other minds outside our own

---

If the requirement is only a requirement of a subset of moral realism and not of the whole class of moral realism then it isn't a requirement of moral realism.  You really suck at this thinking thing, don't you?

Judging that you accused me of defending flying planes into buildings, I don't think it's matter of poor thinking on my part, but an incapacity to read on yours.

Where did I misread you on this? Exactly how is what you said an argument that moral realism is in any way necessarily dependent upon theism?

And I'll simply point out that your belief that it is a result of something other than poor thinking on your part may simply reflect more poor thinking on your part.

[Acrobat]

We experience it as self-evident, as self-evident as the existence of other minds outside our own

---

Judging that you accused me of defending flying planes into buildings, I don't think it's matter of poor thinking on my part, but an incapacity to read on yours.

Where did I misread you on this?  Exactly how is what you said an argument that moral realism is in any way necessarily dependent upon theism?

And I'll simply point out that your belief that it is a result of something other than poor thinking on your part may simply reflect more poor thinking on your part.

This is what I said

"Sure if an atheist, sees conceptions like the existence of a moral reality, an arc of a moral universe, of moral laws that exist as “intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” “a good that’s the source of all things right and true, etc…”, as beliefs dependent on some form of theism, then it should go without saying that their atheism requires a rejection of these very things. Believing in them undermines their disbelief.

Some atheists view the existence of a moral reality, of reality possessing moral properties, as teleological, and telelogy implies the existence of God, and since God does not exist, all teleological aspects of reality are to be denied or rejected as false.

Now you may not be such an unbeliever, but that’s beside the point."

Where here did I say that the whole class of moral realism, or even moral realism requires the existence of God, as you suggested?

[pocaracas]

FFS, stop making stupid analogies!

A fact is a true statement about reality.... or as true as human consensus makes it.

I think it was WLC that noted that any argument made against objective morality, can be equally made against objective truth. Instead of me having to show you this, you seem to making this argument yourself. You’re not only denying mind independent/objective moral truths, but mind independent/truths all together.

Oh, boy...
Why do you keep treating "truth" as something that exists independently of a statement?
I'm amazed at how I've been failing to convey the importance of the statement in connection with that statement's "truth" value.
Statements cannot exist absent of minds, consciousnesses or whatever.... and, as an obvious corollary, neither can truth.

I'm starting to think that you have an inherent difficulty in distinguishing reality from whatever is this thing you call "truth".
Perhaps due to a lifetime to ingraining of some warped concept of "truth", as can be found in the Christian doctrine...

My argument is that moral truths, are like objective truths about reality, and not like subjective opinions or tastes, and rather than arguing otherwise, you’ve resorted to denying the existence of objective truths all together. That they they cease to exist absent of conscience minds to confirm them. (I’m not sure why you don’t take it a step further and suggest that reality doesn’t exist absent of minds to confirm it’s existence). At this point you might as well argue for solipsism.

So much to unpack... so little patience to do it...
I'll give it a quick go...

My gripe is probably with your usage of the word "truth". See above for clarification on what I mean by "truth". Whatever it is that you mean, you have thus far failed to convey a clear enough definition.

Reality is what it is and no amount of objectivity is going to do a dent in it. One can go for solipsism, but I find that to be a waste of time, so... no.
An accurate description of reality can be said to be a true statement, or one with a high "truth" value. I guess this is the sort of thing that you are calling "objective truth".

Moral statements exist as an emergent part of the social aspect of any social species. Some are intuitive, due to their genetic nature, while some are learned, and some are extensions of the other two types.
These statements may not even be verbal. I suppose that a worker ant has only its genetics to thank for considering it to be wrong to eat the queen's eggs, huh? And the ant's genetics developed to be like this in order for the colony to thrive and survive... where colonies with more such ants would prosper while colonies with immoral ants would collapse and win the Darwin Award.

Rather than arguing against my point, you’ve just moved the argument some place else instead. It’s no longer about whether moral truth, is better categorized as objective or subjective, but whether there’s even such a thing as objective truth.

It's a pet peeve of mine to educate you guys as to the meaning of the word "truth". I see it misused so often, that I feel compelled to lend a hand... sadly, the indoctrination on you guys is so strong that you can't grasp the basics of what I mean.

And you’ve done this repeatedly. Rather than dealing with the argument I made, you’ve tried to move it to some argument that barely resembles the one I’m making regarding morality.

That's because you're not using language properly.

You're trying to make the argument that morality is a objective thing, while offering nothing as a reasoning for this, except for your intuitive(?) feeling that it is so.
I've been repeatedly telling you that morality is very likely only an emergent property of social species. That's it, nothing more.

Everything else I write here is an attempt to clarify the way I'm conveying this message, while I try to understand your position a bit better, to see from where you got such an idea.

The question assumes impartial observers... ideally non-human conscious observers. Aliens? Why would aliens have morals equivalent to humanity?

There you go again, changing my argument. I didn’t say anything about non-human, or alien observers, just an objective observers.

An objective observer of mankind can only be non-human. Since no Earth creature has a consciousness similar or more detailed than ours, I assumed you meant an alien. I'm sorry for following the logic through...

I also didn’t say anything about this observers personal beliefs or own moral views. In fact all this observers needed to understand is the human genre of objective truths, vs that of subjective opinions and tastes,

I guess they would understand that "objective truths" are accurate representations of the reality as observed by the humans and should be equal to all those possessing the same sensory apparatus.
While the subjective opinions are preferences shown by individuals and nearly each individual has his/her own unique set.

If they looked at the way we talk about morality, moral statements, moral arguments, moral beliefs, etc… they would recognize that such perceptions resemble objective truths, and not subjective opinions. The statements like torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, more resemble statements like 1+1 =2, and not statements like The Notebook was a terrible movie.

I disagree...

Given that the moral aspect applies to the society, it is then seen as a unique set to a particular society, while some preferences may be different to different societies... which is clearly what we observe in human history.
The moral statement "My life is worth more than that of a Jew" has often been considered true on many Christian societies, while it would be false in a Jewish community.
This example illustrates how a moral statement can be subjective, not as pertaining to an individual person, but rather pertaining to the whole community. With different communities having different sets of moral rules.

Yes, but they only become relevant when they inform some action, some behavior.
If a positive disposition towards harming other humans is not passed on to a corresponding behavior, then such a trait tends to be propagated down the genetic line.
I don't know how wrong such a husband and thief would perceive what they're doing as they're doing it... typically, a greater good is somehow perceived.

Again, shifting my argument. I’m arguing about moral beliefs and perceptions, and here you’re going on about moral behaviors.

That's because behavior is what determines if the intuitive moral perception gets propagated to subsequent generations, reinforcing it or trying to eliminate it.

Secondly, there’s plenty of things people know are wrong, yet do them. I know I shouldn’t eat that cookie, but I give into temptation. I know it’s wrong to cheat on my wife, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to do it. I know it’s wrong to keep the wallet you dropped, but the money is so tempting to keep.

“For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.”

Mostly minor things. Like I hinted at before, there's a spectrum of seriousness on morality...
To top that off, sometimes, you have opposing moral considerations, like "it's wrong to kill this baby, but it will feed my two children for a few days and keep them alive".
Conflicting moral rules force you to pin each of them in a particular position in that spectrum and may the best one win.

Certainly killing someone is more serious than infidelity which is more serious than cheating at some game... The emotional reaction to those should also fall within an equivalent scale.
"It's wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed" might be something that a parent may tell the child.

Again, changing my argument. I indicated the moral statements, such as the ones I tell my children, are not akin to expressing my disgust, or implying that my children should act in ways that don’t disgust me.

Even the statement “its wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed”, doesn’t mean that it’s only wrong if you feel ashamed. It’s wrong even if you don’t feel ashamed about it.

How do you tell that it's wrong?
I'm of the opinion that it starts with the emotional part. Shame brings forth the realization that the action (cheating) is wrong.

"It's wrong and disgusting to torture a baby" is another,

Exactly, it’s wrong and disgusting. The meaning of wrong is not synomous with disgusting. Or else you statement would be “It’s disgusting and disgusting to torture a baby”

I'm clearly using "wrong" as a catch-all to those things that make us feel uncomfortable with our own actions.
With some actions making us feel more uncomfortable (usually due to being more onerous to the society) and thus need to go on a "wronger" position of the spectrum.

Again, you feel it as an objective observation very likely because it's an inherited trait stemming from inwardly acknowledging that such practices lead to a less healthy, less happy, more suffering population.
The same happens for things like incest.

I’m not feeling an objective observation, I’m perceiving and recognizing an objective observation. Might as well say I feel the chair in my room is real, because it’s an inherited trait.

But perhaps you mean something like this: That our strong feelings of disgust leads us to falsely believe that morality exist objectively. We feel the wrongness of something so strongly we can’t believe it’s just an internal biological sensation, we’re compelled to believe something like a moral law out there in the fabric of reality, like a mirage?

Hey!!! You do get it!

It's immoral because of the awareness that carrying out such practices leads to a worse society.

No it isn’t. In fact we seem aware of the wrongness of things, like torturing innocent babies just for fun, prior to assessing whether it has any real impact on our particular society or not.

Perhaps there’s some ruler in some country which we’re dependent on economically, who rapes and murders little children. We may find that it’s better for our society, and it’s material needs, not to intervene, to allow the practice to continue. But this doesn’t mean that we don’t see the act as wrong.

Torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, even if it has no real impact on the wellbeing of our particular society.

You're applying one of those intuitive moral rules, those that apply to small social groups, to a greater international society, while including your own view of mankind as globally the same.
I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong... just that the spectrum still needs to apply. And the wronger nature of the murder of little children seems to overtake any economic gain.

Was it right to do such marginalization? From the overwhelming mideval European christian point of view, it was. From our more globalist point of view, it wasn’t.

No, the overwhelming European christian view wasn’t that it’s okay to marginalize people, to scapegoat, or blame innocent people for things they didn’t do. They just deluded themselves into denying that this is what they were doing. It’s not that we’re operating on the same perception of reality and disagreeing, but one is operating on a false perception of reality to justify their actions.

I'm saying that such a false perception had been simmering for centuries.

[Smaug]

Sometimes I feel that the world is such a harsh place that it would've been nice if there were a loving God who would help the civilization to figure certain problems out. On the other hand, it's naive to dream of something like this. Also, it would kind of devalue the importance of taking decisions and responsibility seriously.

[Acrobat]

Oh, boy...
Why do you keep treating "truth" as something that exists independently of a statement?

True statement are descriptions of reality. That which these statement refer exists independently of the statement itself. Statement that are contrary to reality are false statements. A statement is only true in so much as it an accurate description of reality.

You fail to distinguish false statement, from true statements, or subjective statements. What distinguishes a true statement from a false statement, is that true statements are accurate reflections of reality while false ones are not.

I'm starting to think that you have an inherent difficulty in distinguishing reality from whatever is this thing you call "truth”’



And I’m starting to think your just some solipsist, or some sort factual relativist.

I disagree...

Given that the moral aspect applies to the society, it is then seen as a unique set to a particular society, while some preferences may be different to different societies... which is clearly what we observe in human history.

But perhaps you mean something like this: That our strong feelings of disgust leads us to falsely believe that morality exist objectively. We feel the wrongness of something so strongly we can’t believe it’s just an internal biological sensation, we’re compelled to believe something like a moral law out there in the fabric of reality, like a mirage?

Hey!!! You do get it!

Here you go contradicting yourself. Assuming the last indicated position is true. Because of our strong evolutionary underpinnings we are led to a false belief in an objective moral reality, a moral law out there. If we are led to believe this, then when we speak of morality we are speaking of it as objectively true, as based on a transcend moral law, etc.., not the way we speak of our feelings, or the current opinions of our society. 

Even if the objective observer recognizes that our beliefs our false, he still recognizes that the genre in which our perceptions and beliefs fall into resembles the way we refer to objective truths.

This shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand?

Your own thoughts here seem to be all over the place, searching for something that sticks, but lacks any consistency. You go back and forth between false beliefs that arose out of our evolutionary makeup, to the consensus agreements of societies. 

When I say torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, what I am not saying is that it’s wrong because society agrees it’s wrong, that is not what’s being expressed. I am asserting that which I see as objectively true, a perception of reality itself, and not the current social opinion, or my personal feelings. 

Let’s assume it’s a mirage, an illusion. That even though it appears to me that moral reality exists, it’s really just false belief, that I’ve been led to hold as a result of strong evolutionary emotions and feelings. That which I perceive as real is not real, I’m just fooled by evolution into thinking so. 

But you fail to realize why any of us should believe that which we perceive as real here is not real. Rather than an illusion of moral reality, a moral reality exist. The only reason why I should not believe it exists, is based on presupposition that such a reality can’t exist, so I need to find some excuse to dismiss it, or claim  it’s not real. It’s dictated by your atheism, and you just fail to acknowledge it.
[/quote]

[The Grand Nudger]

Still fucking that chicken?  

Poca didn't need to make any reference to a god, pro or con, in his objections. No one needs to, it's just not relevant to the notion.

You are plain and simply wrong.

[Simon Moon]

I have no barrier that prevents me from belief.

I am able to believe anything that is supported by: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

If your version of a god was able to meet the above criteria, I would be compelled (by my intellectual honesty) to believe it exists. But please note, just because I would then believe it exists (if the case for its existence met the above criteria), does not mean I would be compelled to worship it.

Of course you have barriers to beliefs, after all you’re not a robot, but a biological human being, in which our beliefs shape who we are and how we interact and relate to the world.

You are correct, but not in the way you think you are.

The only barrier I have to belief, is that the claim must meet the following criteria: be supported by demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

I am completely open to believe anything that clears the above criteria.

But here’s a question do you want to believe?

One of my primary motivations in life, is to believe as many true things, and disbelieve as many false things, as possible.

It is not about what I 'want' to believe, it is about what is warranted to believe.

If so I think it’s pretty easy to believe that we’re a part of a created order, that life has a narrative arc, possessing a moral order, in which we recognize right and wrong, that the sheer beauty and excessiveness, complexity and depth of life, our desire for meaning, truth, goodness, a sense of something more, provide an adequate enough basis for anyone looking to believe to believe.

Sure, to those that don't understand good standards of evidence, valid and sound logic, fallacious thinking, it is easy to believe all you mention. Just because it is easy to believe those things, doesn't mean that there are good reasons to believe those things.

To bad, none of those things are actually demonstrable or supported by valid and sound logic.

Most people believe those things, because the are guilty of the fallacy of personal incredulity. "I can't explain how those things came about, so it must have been gods".

It’s only not sufficient for those who desire not to believe.

Yes, I admit, flawed logic, lack of demonstrable evidence, wishful thinking, are not sufficient for me to believe. Why is it my fault that you god fails to provide me with those things?

Sorry, but your way of thinking is indistinguishable from gullibility, as far as I can see. I don't want any part of it.

[pocaracas]

Oh, boy...
Why do you keep treating "truth" as something that exists independently of a statement?

True statement are descriptions of reality. That which these statement refer exists independently of the statement itself. Statement that are contrary to reality are false statements. A statement is only true in so much as it an accurate description of reality.

LOL!

How nice of you to say the exact same thing 4 times.

You fail to distinguish false statement, from true statements, or subjective statements. What distinguishes a true statement from a false statement, is that true statements are accurate reflections of reality while false ones are not.

If I was addressing your repeated use of "truth", why should I need to bring up the opposite? I remember mentioning it a few posts ago, so I figured that would be enough.

I'm starting to think that you have an inherent difficulty in distinguishing reality from whatever is this thing you call "truth”’



And I’m starting to think your just some solipsist, or some sort factual relativist.

Perhaps.... I don't care much for labels. I think what I think the way I think.

I disagree...

Given that the moral aspect applies to the society, it is then seen as a unique set to a particular society, while some preferences may be different to different societies... which is clearly what we observe in human history.

Hey!!! You do get it!

Here you go contradicting yourself. Assuming the last indicated position is true. Because of our strong evolutionary underpinnings we are led to a false belief in an objective moral reality, a moral law out there. If we are led to believe this, then when we speak of morality we are speaking of it as objectively true, as based on a transcend moral law, etc.., not the way we speak of our feelings, or the current opinions of our society. 

Even if the objective observer recognizes that our beliefs our false, he still recognizes that the genre in which our perceptions and beliefs fall into resembles the way we refer to objective truths.

Resemble, but ultimately are not based on a feature of reality, just an emergent feature of a social species.

This shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand?

Your own thoughts here seem to be all over the place, searching for something that sticks, but lacks any consistency. You go back and forth between false beliefs that arose out of our evolutionary makeup, to the consensus agreements of societies.

That back and forth is in your mind. I keep telling you that there's a spectrum to moral rules and those we feel more strongly about align with those that would have arisen farther back in our evolutionary path, while those we see as less strong tend to pertain more to our recent societies.
There might be exceptions to this rule of thumb, but I can't imagine them, right now.



When I say torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, what I am not saying is that it’s wrong because society agrees it’s wrong, that is not what’s being expressed. I am asserting that which I see as objectively true, a perception of reality itself, and not the current social opinion, or my personal feelings. 



And you say my thoughts are all over the place. You still fail to grasp the simple fact harming another human being (be it a baby, be it an adult... be it for fun or not) is perceived as wrong because we evolved to consider that it is harmful to the group for any of its elements to be harmed.
Such harm is accepted when it comes from outside the group as a fact of life. But it is strongly discouraged from within the group. You see this in practice all over the animal kingdom, except where other imperatives take over. That is why I say that this sort of rule is embedded in your genes, much as it is embedded in other animals' genes.
It's an intuitive rule that has been selected for over millions of years in all social species.

Let’s assume it’s a mirage, an illusion. That even though it appears to me that moral reality exists, it’s really just false belief, that I’ve been led to hold as a result of strong evolutionary emotions and feelings. That which I perceive as real is not real, I’m just fooled by evolution into thinking so. 

But you fail to realize why any of us should believe that which we perceive as real here is not real. Rather than an illusion of moral reality, a moral reality exist. The only reason why I should not believe it exists, is based on presupposition that such a reality can’t exist, so I need to find some excuse to dismiss it, or claim  it’s not real. It’s dictated by your atheism, and you just fail to acknowledge it.

Dismiss evolutionary psychology all you want, but that doesn't change that it is a powerful mechanism that can easily account for your perception. Evolution doesn't care if your perception is accurate, only that it works for the purpose it was selected for... and that is to keep the group healthy and thriving.

I think you just want your perception to be 100% accurate because it helps in your narrative that there is an external moral rule giver, god. You've been conditioned to accept that this god exists and need some reasoning to go along with it, as pure belief isn't entirely satisfactory to you. So you follow WLC and other theist thinkers... Have you ever heard of Edward Feser?

[Angrboda]

---

Where did I misread you on this?  Exactly how is what you said an argument that moral realism is in any way necessarily dependent upon theism?

And I'll simply point out that your belief that it is a result of something other than poor thinking on your part may simply reflect more poor thinking on your part.

This is what I said

"Sure if an atheist, sees conceptions like the existence of a moral reality, an arc of a moral universe, of moral laws that exist as “intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” “a good that’s the source of all things right and true, etc…”, as beliefs dependent on some form of theism, then it should go without saying that their atheism requires a rejection of these very things. Believing in them undermines their disbelief.

Some atheists view the existence of a moral reality, of reality possessing moral properties, as teleological, and telelogy implies the existence of God, and since God does not exist, all teleological aspects of reality are to be denied or rejected as false.

Now you may not be such an unbeliever, but that’s beside the point."

Where here did I say that the whole class of moral realism, or even moral realism requires the existence of God, as you suggested?

That's not relevant to what I was replying to and itself doesn't establish that moral realism depends upon the existence of God.

Gae wrote that, "moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong," and you replied the following in an attempt to refute his point that moral realism does not depend upon God.

It depends on what form of moral realism you're referring to, if its akin to some form of platonic moral realism, than yes that's dependent on platonic theism.

If we're talking about yours, which is just dressed up subjectivism than no. In our previous argument over this, I got you to concede to the idea of taste realism, that thin crispy pizza with the right proportion of cheese is objectively good. According to your logic, all thats required to shift any subjective preference to objectivism, is defining some measurable criteria to qualify one's subjective preferences. You fail to recognize your incoherencies, that's perhaps why you've done a poor job of selling moral realism onto other atheists here.

Neither your reply to Gae nor the statement you quoted above demonstrate that moral realism depends upon God. And the statement you quoted was a response to Gae pointing out that a person's atheism can only inform their moral realism if their moral realism depended upon the existence of God. In making that claim, that "In any case, your notion that this is somehow a product of atheism is fatally misconceived," Gae was pointing out that moral realism was not intrinsically linked to atheism. To which you responded, "I'm merely pointing out that the reason why many atheists reject moral objectivism, is because of their atheism. Clearly you're not included in this assessment, since you agree that moral objectivism is true. Whether one can reconcile moral objectivism and atheism is beside the point here," which is another example of you mistaking the subset for the whole. There are no separate versions of atheism for those who believe in moral objectivism and those that don't. What you are describing is a consequence of their beliefs independent of their atheism. The only thing that the entire class of atheists share is that they do not have a belief in a god. If that is what atheism is, the only way their atheism could inform their views on moral realism is if God were necessary for an atheist to embrace moral realism and it's not. What you are pointing out is that some atheists have rejected moral realism because they have rejected a belief in God AND hold that moral realism is dependent upon a belief in God. That may be true, but since atheism isn't the position that moral realism depends upon God, then your initial claim that many atheists reject moral objectivism because of their atheism is wrong, and a more accurate statement would be that many atheists reject moral objectivism because they believe that moral objectivism depends upon God. Since the latter is a statement about what some atheists hold to be true and is not a part of atheism itself, your claim that they reject it because of their atheism is wrong. Atheism, in itself may be a condition upon which rejection of moral objectivism is premised, but it alone is not necessary and sufficient for rejection of moral objectivism. So you were simply wrong in premising their rejection of moral objectivism upon their atheism. And your parenthetical that whether atheism and moral objectivism can be reconciled is not the point there was in fact the point because by claiming that atheism itself was the cause of these atheist's rejection of moral realism, you were implicitly claiming that it could not be reconciled with their atheism, because if it can be reconciled with their atheism, then those atheist's rejection of moral objectivism is premised upon a false belief, that moral objectivism requires God, and it is that false belief which informs their rejection of moral objectivism, not their atheism. (It's trivially true that anything in combination with a false belief can reach any desired conclusion, so the fact that this false belief employs atheism in reaching its conclusion gets you nothing as you could prove anything that way.)

(You also make the same mistake in responding to poca just now when you say, "The only reason why I should not believe it exists, is based on presupposition that such a reality can’t exist, so I need to find some excuse to dismiss it, or claim it’s not real. It’s dictated by your atheism, and you just fail to acknowledge it." As pointed out already, unless it's a necessary fact of atheism that atheism dictates its rejection, then it isn't atheism that dictates its rejection.)

I noticed that you snipped my quote of you saying that the existence of other minds was self evident. Probably a wise move. Nonetheless, I would like to know exactly what evidence you have that other minds exist such that you think it is self evident that they do. Since you analogize the self evidence of the existence of other minds to the self evidence of objective morals, if the existence of other minds is not self evident, then by analogy, neither is the existence of objective morals. So, please, demonstrate that the existence of other minds is self evident.