Objective Morality and God

[Belindi]

Pattern Chaser replied to Steve(part):

I'm sorry, I don't think this argument stands up. You argue that "evolutionary reasons why various moral codes emerged" may suggest a common theme in our moral codes, and I agree. But what reason is there to believe that this commonality is universal? For "objective", in this context, carries with it "universal" as one aspect of its meaning, doesn't it? To equate commonality with objectivity is no different to asserting that consensus = objectivity, as far as I can see. And that latter is easily refuted by remembering that there was a time, not too long ago, when the consensus was that the Earth is flat, but objectivity said otherwise (even if we didn't know that at the time).

'Evolution' does not necessarily imply evolution by genetic natural selection. Humans evolve mostly by way of cultures of belief .

For instance Muhammad, a well -travelled trader and business man ,saw that the Arabian tribes' vendetta method of social control which was based solely upon reciprocity was disfunctional. So Muhammad introduced Allah the One God whose moral code was , besides reciprocity, based also upon universalistic intentions before the event.

Earlier monotheistic religions had been developed centuries previously within several geographically distinct civilisations where prophets had understood the value of the Golden Rule for social control. The Golden Rule is universalistic not tribal.

It's reasonable to presume universalism as a main part of morality developed as a reasoned response to economic changes towards people living in larger and settled communities, changes that happened in various localities within the time frame of about five centuries .

[Pattern-chaser]

Uummm... I wouldn't be citing Hindus in India (94% of all Hindus) as an example of religious tolerance, if I was trying to find an example of it.

I wasn't. I offered an example of religious belief that exists in the real world, that is not uncommon, as 15% of humanity hold that view. Human adherents of the Hindu religion are human, and as such, they are (or can be) as barbaric as the rest of us. Religious tolerance is a different ball-game. We could discuss that, if you like, but I don't think it's really on-topic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Only by insisting that "objective" does not imply universality could such a position be justified, and if "objective" does not carry with it the message of universality, it's difficult for me to see what the word might be intended to mean...?

I don't agree that objective means necessarily universal. I think it means being part of the real world, or relationships between things in the real world, as opposed to being abstract. By "real" here I mean extra-mental and by "abstract" here I mean concepts in minds with no necessary mapping to anything extra-mental - thoughts.

But obviously, as has been discovered in a lot of discussion in other topics, the words "objective" and "subjective" are used with various different shades of meaning in different contexts.

Ah. I was thinking of subjective truth, which is (possibly) confined to a single individual, in contrast to objective truth, which applies to everything, everywhere: universe-al. And yet the evolutionary reasons you refer to are abstract, by your definition, and so cannot offer an objective justification for morality and moral codes. Yes?

[Steve3007]

Ah. I was thinking of subjective truth, which is (possibly) confined to a single individual, in contrast to objective truth, which applies to everything, everywhere: universe-al.

I think this is essentially the same as the definition of subjectivity/objectivity I gave earlier. I think we probably agree, but just put things in slightly different terms. I think the concept of universality comes from the idea that objective propositions are propositions about real objects and their properties. And the definition of a real object, if we put it in epistemological terms, is that it is the cause of an arbitrarily large number (a universal set of) potential perceptions. i.e. everyone can see it. This is what I was getting at in the post I wrote about the use of the word "universal".

And yet the evolutionary reasons you refer to are abstract, by your definition, and so cannot offer an objective justification for morality and moral codes. Yes?

I'm not sure what you mean by this part. I regard facts about our evolutionary make-up as objective. For example, if I propose "people tend to be social animals" I'm making an objective proposition.

[Steve3007]

Just to clarify the above:

I think an example of an objective proposition is: "There is an elephant in my garden". That's not a proposition about everything everywhere. It doesn't apply to everything everywhere. It applies to the elephant in my garden. The sense in which it is is universal is that, when taken in epistemological terms, it's a proposition that a universal set of observers (i.e. all observers), suitably situated, would see an elephant in my garden. When translated into ontological terms, it's a proposition that a real, extra-mental, elephant exists.

Whereas a similar subjective proposition would be "I am perceiving an elephant", because that's a proposition about the abstract contents of a single mind (mine). It's not directly about real objects (ontologically speaking) and it's not about universal sets of observers (epistemologically speaking).

[Pattern-chaser]

And yet the evolutionary reasons you refer to are abstract, by your definition, and so cannot offer an objective justification for morality and moral codes. Yes?

I'm not sure what you mean by this part. I regard facts about our evolutionary make-up as objective. For example, if I propose "people tend to be social animals" I'm making an objective proposition.

The factual observations are objective, in the way we are using it here. But our analysis, and our theory of evolution that we created to reflect our understanding of the world, are both abstract. Neither of them exist in the real world, unless we count their presence in our minds as existing, and I don't think we can or should, given your wish to distinguish the real (objective) from the abstract (non-objective).

As it happens, I agree with your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality. But I cannot agree that it is objective; it seems to be a synthesis of the real and the abstract. I don't think a thing can be partly objective, just as a woman can't be partly pregnant, so I can't agree that your suggestion can reasonably be seen as objective.

Just to clarify the above:

I think an example of an objective proposition is: "There is an elephant in my garden". That's not a proposition about everything everywhere. It doesn't apply to everything everywhere. It applies to the elephant in my garden.

Agreed, but I didn't say "about", I said "applies". Objective truth - a truth concerning something "real", in your terms - applies to everything, everywhere, so if I am some arbitrary type of thing in an arbitrary location somewhere (anywhere) in the universe, considering this matter, it remains the case that there is an elephant in your garden.

[Pattern-chaser]

As it happens, I agree with your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality. But I cannot agree that it is objective; it seems to be a synthesis of the real and the abstract. I don't think a thing can be partly objective, just as a woman can't be partly pregnant, so I can't agree that your suggestion can reasonably be seen as objective.

Sorry, I forgot to add my conclusion: And therefore, there is no objective foundation for morality, as the topic describes.

[Steve3007]

The factual observations are objective, in the way we are using it here.

I don't really get what a "factual observation" is. To me, "factual" is a word that applies to propositions/statements and observation is an activity. I get what a "factual statement" or a "factual proposition" is, but not a "factual observation". That seems to me like a category confusion.

But our analysis, and our theory of evolution that we created to reflect our understanding of the world, are both abstract...

Yes, of course theories, propositions, statements, utterances, etc are not real. They're not objects. But in my usage, as I said, an objective proposition is, essentially, a proposition about an object, as opposed to a proposition about a subject. So "There is an elephant in my garden" is about an elephant. "I perceive an elephant" is about me.

As it happens, I agree with your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality. But I cannot agree that it is objective

Cannot agree that what is objective?

it seems to be a synthesis of the real and the abstract

I'm not 100% sure what the 'it' refers to here. The the thing in that sentence that it looks like it refers to is "evolutionary matters". I'm not sure what you mean by that term. Do you mean propositions about evolution?

... so I can't agree that your suggestion can reasonably be seen as objective.

When you say suggestion, do you mean the proposition "people tend to be social animals"? Would you at least agree that that is a proposition about real objects and their properties?

Agreed, but I didn't say "about", I said "applies". Objective truth - a truth concerning something "real", in your terms - applies to everything, everywhere, so if I am some arbitrary type of thing in an arbitrary location somewhere (anywhere) in the universe, considering this matter, it remains the case that there is an elephant in your garden.

Good, we agree here it seems. I think you're saying here what I said. When you refer to "some arbitrary type of thing" you talk about it "considering this matter". So I guess you're talking about an observer. So you seem to be saying that objective propositions are proposition about things that can be confirmed by, as I put it, "a universal set of observers".

[Steve3007]

Regarding my first comment in the post above, when you say "factual observation" you may be using the word "observation" to mean not the act of observing something but the act of making a statement about something. Such are the nuances of language. If that's what you meant, then forget my first comment there. The confusion is resolved. In this case, if we regard, "humans are social animals" as a "factual observation" then we're agreed that it's objective. Good!

[LuckyR]

Uummm... I wouldn't be citing Hindus in India (94% of all Hindus) as an example of religious tolerance, if I was trying to find an example of it.

I wasn't. I offered an example of religious belief that exists in the real world, that is not uncommon, as 15% of humanity hold that view. Human adherents of the Hindu religion are human, and as such, they are (or can be) as barbaric as the rest of us. Religious tolerance is a different ball-game. We could discuss that, if you like, but I don't think it's really on-topic.

Well, if someone truly believes that every religion's gods are valid, why would such a belief system lead to killing folks of a different religion solely because of their religious affiliation?

The simplest explanation is that while religious texts may state such a stance, that a large subset don't actually believe in it, and beliefs are what you cited, right?

[Pattern-chaser]

The factual observations are objective, in the way we are using it here.

I don't really get what a "factual observation" is. To me, "factual" is a word that applies to propositions/statements and observation is an activity. I get what a "factual statement" or a "factual proposition" is, but not a "factual observation". That seems to me like a category confusion.

How else would you describe (scientific) observations of the real (as opposed to abstract) world? They are observations, and the data resulting from those observations is factual and objective.

As it happens, I agree with your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality. But I cannot agree that it is objective

Cannot agree that what is objective?

"your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality".

it seems to be a synthesis of the real and the abstract

I'm not 100% sure what the 'it' refers to here.

"your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality".

The the thing in that sentence that it looks like it refers to is "evolutionary matters". I'm not sure what you mean by that term. Do you mean propositions about evolution?

... so I can't agree that your suggestion can reasonably be seen as objective.

When you say suggestion, do you mean the proposition "people tend to be social animals"?

No: "your suggestion about how evolutionary matters might be a grounding for the development of morality".

Agreed, but I didn't say "about", I said "applies". Objective truth - a truth concerning something "real", in your terms - applies to everything, everywhere, so if I am some arbitrary type of thing in an arbitrary location somewhere (anywhere) in the universe, considering this matter, it remains the case that there is an elephant in your garden.

Good, we agree here it seems. I think you're saying here what I said. When you refer to "some arbitrary type of thing" you talk about it "considering this matter".

I was referring back to my own phrase "everything, everywhere", hence my reference to a thing ("everything") and a location ("everywhere"). And yes, I'm assuming this 'thing' is considering the same matters we are.

[Sculptor1]

There is no doubt that evolution is a process that has led to all human innate characteristics.
That we can or should use this information as a basis for any kind of morality is dubious in the extreme.
The fact that humans compete and co-operate are innate characteristics.
The fact that humans seek the company of others and tend to gravitate to what they see as their "own kind" is also an innate characteristic.
But evolution has also led to a great deal of diversity. Social, psychological and biological differences between individuals means that a one size fits all is simply not possible. We are not ants.
Using evolutionary theory as a source for social progress and morality was experimented with with devastating results in the first half of the 20thC, and I am not going to recommend that we repeat this hideous error.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Any proclaimed- = asserted god and any objectivity, any morality is as imaginary
as are space, time, mass, energy, laws and any other proclaimed god.
They are the possible-, yet imaginary elements of the PSYCHE momentarily elicited in an individual human being

The assertions OF space, time, mass, energy, laws and any other proclaimed god,
these are very real.
Any measurement of space, time, mass, energy is a mere proclamation = assertion = object-IZATION.
Is, iow NOT, and I assure you, NOT in the slightest, tantamount to the detection of the property at stake.

The assertion, that any element of the imaginary, the PSYCHE, be existing
per se = it-self, as such, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
can be called "religious".

The assertioon OF, for an example morality,
it can be DEEMED TO BE:
true or false
useful or useless
relative or absolute
subjective or objective
local or global, if not even universal.

BTW: I am using a very old GREEK template for a categorization:
Physis (REAL, the original-there)
VERSUS
Psyche (imaginary, made up from/about the REAL)
VERSUS
Logos (REAL, the expression OF Psyche)

Physis = the universe
Psyche = space, time, mass, energy, laws and any god
Logos = the assertion OF space,time, mass, energy, laws and any god
= law-texts, science-articles, holey-scriptures

ANY believer knows very well, that they ONLY believe after indoctrination from scripture = assertion.
Unfortunately they bravely suppress this assertion, although they already know it from many other people.
They do this, bcz "my elders ought-, should-, must-, can-not have been wrong" and
"I do not want to leave my hope on eternal afterlife"

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

There is no doubt that evolution is a process that has led to all human innate characteristics.

There is much doubt to say the least!

Even some birds and other animal species evolve by learning that is passed from one generation to the next, by imitating others. Think of the role of the female dog or bear in how they discipline their cubs . The sheep dog especially is interesting; while these are bred by artificial selection for herding ability and docility, a puppy that lacks training from its mother, and later on other adult sheep dogs, is useless. How much more powerful for change is culture of belief and practice pertaining to humans who have those recorded in enormous stores of knowledge! Even before written language humans passed accumulated knowledge through the generations via stone monuments and cave paintings.

There is no way the difference between the moral system of Hitlerian Nazism could be caused by the same genetic process that caused Jesus or Gandhi. These differences are differences between cultures, not differences of genetics. True, we all can develop into monsters, however our cultural milieux determine whether or not we do so. In the modern world this very day there are very very strong cultural norms that stop , for instance, Americans and Europeans becoming like the military in Myanmar, or the criminal Arab rulers of Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

[NickGaspar]

Any proclaimed- = asserted god and any objectivity, any morality is as imaginary
as are space, time, mass, energy, laws and any other proclaimed god.
They are the possible-, yet imaginary elements of the PSYCHE momentarily elicited in an individual human being

The assertions OF space, time, mass, energy, laws and any other proclaimed god,
these are very real.
Any measurement of space, time, mass, energy is a mere proclamation = assertion = object-IZATION.
Is, iow NOT, and I assure you, NOT in the slightest, tantamount to the detection of the property at stake.

The assertion, that any element of the imaginary, the PSYCHE, be existing
per se = it-self, as such, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
can be called "religious".

The assertioon OF, for an example morality,
it can be DEEMED TO BE:
true or false
useful or useless
relative or absolute
subjective or objective
local or global, if not even universal.

BTW: I am using a very old GREEK template for a categorization:
Physis (REAL, the original-there)
VERSUS
Psyche (imaginary, made up from/about the REAL)
VERSUS
Logos (REAL, the expression OF Psyche)

Physis = the universe
Psyche = space, time, mass, energy, laws and any god
Logos = the assertion OF space,time, mass, energy, laws and any god
= law-texts, science-articles, holey-scriptures

ANY believer knows very well, that they ONLY believe after indoctrination from scripture = assertion.
Unfortunately they bravely suppress this assertion, although they already know it from many other people.
They do this, bcz "my elders ought-, should-, must-, can-not have been wrong" and
"I do not want to leave my hope on eternal afterlife"

-" any objectivity, any morality is as imaginary as are space, time, mass, energy, ".
- Those are descriptive labels for real quantifiable phenomena in nature.

-"BTW: I am using a very old GREEK template for a categorization:
Physis (REAL, the original-there)
VERSUS
Psyche (imaginary, made up from/about the REAL)
VERSUS
Logos (REAL, the expression OF Psyche)

Physis = the universe
Psyche = space, time, mass, energy, laws and any god
Logos = the assertion OF space,time, mass, energy, laws and any god
= law-texts, science-articles, holey-scriptures "

Physis/φύση/nature based on φύειν =to grow, to appear.
The universe is a label we use to describe the total sum of processes and entities. Physis/Nature describes the nature of those processes in the universe(Processes appear and grow). You shouldn't equate the concept of universe(συμπαν) and Physis(φύση).

Psyche/Ψυχή/soul . Psyche has nothing to do with "imaginary or made up" and so do space, time, mass and energy. They are concepts that label quantifiable physical phenomena.


logos/λόγος/the word. Yes, logos is how we express our mental concepts. Our mental concepts (like space, time, mass and energy) can be descriptive or imaginative (like gods,magical substances and entities etc).