Objective morality and the Necessity of God

[baker]

Not at all, as it is possible to conceive of "self" as yet another mental object. This is esp.possible in a reference frame where selfhood is seen as something constructed, and not as a fixed entity.

Hence why I said that one is "placing them in the world." If one is proposing an ontology of separate mental whatevers where it's "all just mental" one would need to try to make some sense out of just what that would amount to ontologically, because on the face of it, it's incoherent.

Because in early Buddhism, the "world" is, basically, "your" thoughts --

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

They are somewhat similar to idealists. Anyway, this discussion is getting unmanageable, and I'm not going to ask you to study up on early Buddhism.

[baker]

Terrapin Station --

The reason to presume it is not mere fantasy is all the experimental evidence.

That's your cue for the Two Dogmas of Empiricism!

[Pattern-chaser]

"Objectivity" refers in some way - maybe mildly, maybe in absolute terms - to that which actually is.

All we have to work with is what we are capable of observing.

Yes, indeed, which is why science (rationally and sensibly) steers clear of such topics: it simply isn't equipped to deal with them.

So, for all practical purposes, objective reality is equal to observed reality.

And if we didn't have telescopes or space-ships, would we assert that "for all practical purposes, Neptune is equal to Earth"? I don't think so. This is nothing but Objectivist desperation. To be honest, it's sad to see and to read, especially on a philosophy forum.

Observed reality is ... observed reality. It is not - i.e. may or may not be - objective reality. It is easier for all of us if we say what we mean, not what we imagine should be.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Objectivity" refers in some way - maybe mildly, maybe in absolute terms - to that which actually is. Apparent reality may or may not be objective reality, there is no way we can, or will ever, know. So your assertions are nothing but misleading.

(somewhat bridging off of this - not all of the below is direct reply)

This is part of why I've been harping on terminology in this thread. Things can seem objectively true but (object vs. subject) be both objective and subjective observations and in the later case 'experiences', I guess the only place where the terms really coincide properly are subjective vs subject, ie. you can have subjectivity without a subject to experience it other than perhaps external artifacts of subjectivity in the social and artistic world.

Yes, I've posted about terminology too, particularly the word "objective" (and its derivatives). I have come to the conclusion that the term "objective" is misleading and deceptive wherever it occurs.

No matter the mildness or severity of the intended meaning, the user makes a claim that their outpourings in some way correspond to that which actually is, a claim that is impossible for a human to justify. Use of "objective" is a fraudulent attempt to imbue one's sayings with the authority of correspondence to that which actually is. This, along with the confusion caused by milder, or more severe, meanings that the term can carry, make "objective" a counter-productive term in any meaningful discussion, IMO.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Objectivity" refers in some way - maybe mildly, maybe in absolute terms - to that which actually is.

So, for all practical purposes, objective reality is equal to observed reality.

Concerning the use of "objective":

No matter the mildness or severity of the intended meaning, the user makes a claim that their outpourings in some way correspond to that which actually is, a claim that is impossible for a human to justify. Use of "objective" is a fraudulent attempt to imbue one's sayings with the authority of correspondence to that which actually is.

Your use of the word "objective" carries no useful meaning at all, except to remind us of your emotional and religious ties to Objectivism. You seek to shore up your argument-by-assertion philosophy by making it seem that your words carry more authority than they actually do. Other words, such as "fraud", "misleading", "deceptive", "alt-truth", and even "lies", spring to mind.

[HJCarden]

If there exists objective moral values a moral lawgiver must exist
there exists objective moral values
therefore a moral lawgiver exists

The fact that objective morality exists is axiomatic. For those who would deny objective morality, you will find the same person appealing to a standard (an objective standard) the very moment they are cheated. The conscience also bears witness to the objective moral standard. For when we commit an immoral act against this standard we do so at the injury of our conscience, and we do so in secret. For who (besides a select few, whose conscience has been desensitized) commits adultery, or steals for that matter in the sight of all people? If morality is subjective, and stealing according to my own standard is amoral, why do I then try and cover up my act with such diligence?
Human History testifies as well to objective morality, for not one society has existed where it has been considered moral to murder your neighbor and plunder his belongings. Nor in the whole of human history has it been considered amoral or moral for that matter to actively and consistently lie and deceive others. If one acts in such a way, history shows society shuns such a one, and few if any desire to have any relationship regardless of the superficiality of the relationship with such an individual.
Therefore since objective morality exists, there by necessity must be an objective moral law giver. For when has a law spontaneously popped into existence. Every law that has been written has had an author or series of authors, or lawgivers. Why would we consider the objective moral law the exception? For since an objective moral law exists, there logically must be an objective moral law giver! This moral law giver necessarily exists before time, since the moral law was already existent when humans appeared upon the earth. Therefore this lawgiver must be timeless in essence.
There are only few that fit this criteria. A number is one option. Since a number is an abstract object, and objective and timeless in essence. The problem is, a number has no creative capacity. It simply exists. The only other option is the person of God. Who has creative capacity, who is timeless, objective in nature, and is a moral being. As a moral being it logically follows that He desires the creatures that He made to be moral in their actions towards one another as well.

So since an objective moral law exists, God is the creator of the moral law, which actually reflects His own perfect nature.

I agree with the sentiments of this point, but I find the explanation lacking in its considerations.

I agree that if there is a moral law, there exists a moral law giver however on the condition that morality has some special nature to it that could separate it from laws such as the law of gravity, or we include all laws in the set of laws that need a law giver.

To explain further, I believe that morality would need a law giver only if it was demonstrably different than other types of laws. What separates the laws of morality from the laws of physics? Or even from on the book laws that govern our interactions with eachother? For me its hard to imagine a way to truly elevate or at least differentiate moral law.

I do feel that it is much easier to look at the set of laws which govern the universe and see some sort of necessity for a law giver. What is the fabric that holds together the laws of our universe? What underwrites their existence? do we potentially just categorize the universe in a way that is pleasing to us and makes sense, or do these laws actually exist beyond just our experience of them and then we question whether they need a creator. And on this my intuitions make me lean towards believing that they do, as it is difficult to think of an aspect of gravity that would create gravity.

These are my rough thoughts on the matter. I would be interested and happy to hear from others who have discussed this topic or know of broader discussions about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

What separates the laws of morality from the laws of physics?

The former are proscriptive, while the latter are descriptive, with no authority of their own.

[HJCarden]

What separates the laws of morality from the laws of physics?

The former are proscriptive, while the latter are descriptive, with no authority of their own.

Thats one way of looking at them, but is it also plausible to describe the laws of morality as laws that arise to create cohesion in society, a society that is shaped by biological and evolutionary forces? Could these moral codes just be an expression of our evolutionary history, with their prescriptive aspect not being a dominating feature but rather a result of our reflection on them?

[Terrapin Station]

What separates the laws of morality from the laws of physics?

The former are proscriptive, while the latter are descriptive, with no authority of their own.

Thats one way of looking at them, but is it also plausible to describe the laws of morality as laws that arise to create cohesion in society, a society that is shaped by biological and evolutionary forces? Could these moral codes just be an expression of our evolutionary history, with their prescriptive aspect not being a dominating feature but rather a result of our reflection on them?

I'd not say that there are any "laws of morality" to talk about in the first place.

Re laws of physics, the idea is that they're the case whether anyone is aware of them, whether anyone wants to think about them, etc. or not.

If "laws of morality" would be about "cohesion in society," we'd still not be avoiding the fact that the supposed laws would only be the laws insofar as people desire cohesion. If people desired disorder, dissolution, etc. instead, then a very different set of moral prescriptions would be the "laws of morality." In other words, we could say, "Moral stance x (at least tends to ) leads to cohesion; Moral stance y--the opposite of x, (at least tends to) leads to dissolution." But that would not tell anyone whether they should do x or y, whether x or y are right, etc.

[Pattern-chaser]

What separates the laws of morality from the laws of physics?

The former are proscriptive, while the latter are descriptive, with no authority of their own.

Thats one way of looking at them, but is it also plausible to describe the laws of morality as laws that arise...

Of course they "arise", as in "come about", but perhaps it's more useful to consider their source? They don't come from heaven, nor from Nature. They come from human societies.

...to create cohesion in society, a society that is shaped by biological and evolutionary forces? Could these moral codes just be an expression of our evolutionary history, with their prescriptive aspect not being a dominating feature but rather a result of our reflection on them?

The reasons societies come up with the laws of morality is a separate discussion, I think. I wouldn't care to speculate on what these reasons might be. It is possible that one of these reasons is "to create cohesion in society", as you say. Or maybe not. They could be "an expression of our evolutionary history" too; who knows?

But your final point is important; to me, at least. Our human-created moral laws are prescriptive specifically and only because we (i.e. societies) say they should be, and we enforce them accordingly. The laws of physics describe what we have learned about the way the universe operates. These laws are not prescriptive in any way. They do not force the universe to operate in a particular way, nor would the behaviour of the universe change (in even the tiniest way) if these laws were never created-and-expressed by physicists. The laws of physics have no binding power; the universe behaves as it must, because of what/how it is. That's it.