"Objective" Foundation for Morals

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, I could and would make all of these choices to believe in a nano second if [Koine second class conditional] the Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Immutable, Eternal God I know had in His Veracity and Integrity required me to do so.

No, you couldn't. Sure, you could CLAIM to believe in Unicorns, but you'd be lying.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, you couldn't. Sure, you could CLAIM to believe in Unicorns, but you'd be lying.

Those interested may want to read about Doxastic Voluntarism at

http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

It starts:

"Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical doctrine according to which people have voluntary control over their beliefs. Philosophers in the debate about doxastic voluntarism distinguish between two kinds of voluntary control. The first is known as direct voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that if a person chooses to perform them, they happen immediately. For instance, a person has direct voluntary control over whether he or she is thinking about his or her favorite song at a given moment. The second is known as indirect voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that although a person lacks direct voluntary control over them, he or she can cause them to happen if he or she chooses to perform some number of other, intermediate actions. For instance, a person untrained in music has indirect voluntary control over whether he or she will play a melody on a violin. Corresponding to this distinction between two kinds of voluntary control, philosophers distinguish between two kinds of doxastic voluntarism. Direct doxastic voluntarism claims that people have direct voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs. Indirect doxastic voluntarism, however, supposes that people have indirect voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs, for example, by doing research and evaluating evidence.

This article offers an introductory explanation of the nature of belief, the nature of voluntary control, the reasons for the consensus regarding indirect doxastic voluntarism, the reasons for the disagreements regarding direct doxastic voluntarism, and the practical implications for the debate about doxastic voluntarism in ethics, epistemology, political theory, and the philosophy of religion."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, I could and would make all of these choices to believe in a nano second if [Koine second class conditional] the Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Immutable, Eternal God I know had in His Veracity and Integrity required me to do so.

Why do you need such a strong motivation? All I asked is that you believe them for a day. After a day, you may decide to stop believing.
Is it perhaps the case that you can in fact not choose since you claim a prior requisite that has not been met?

Why don't we try it this way: make the choice to believe that the Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Immutable, Eternal God you know, in His Veracity and Integrity requires you to do so.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, the great Fixer of all Moral Injustices comes along and ... well, it depends on who you ask.

Some say he unconditionally pardons everyone who 'accepts' Jesus. (So what they really want is to escape justice)
Some say he destroys the souls of the 'bad' people while giving the good people an idyllic existence in the afterlife (so I guess the ...[text shortened]... it seems they've failed to recognize that they aren't being promised anything even close to it.

Right. This goes back to the vaguery that attends the notion of ultimate justice within some theistic conceptions. Having God in the mix is supposed to provide for an ultimate sense of justice. The finer grained details of how exactly this works…not so clear.

Originally posted by JS357
[quote] ... This makes God less a souce of objective morality (which literally makes no sense anyway, to say that the source of mind-independent morals is a divine mind) and more an ultimate moral balance restorer, in terms of delivering ultimate retributive justice that would otherwise go unchecked. If so, this plays nicely into my other thread, Thread 157928 ...[text shortened]... r posturing) there is room in theism for social conscience and other more advanced moral levels.

I don't think the ultimately subjective nature of an authoritative divinely sourced morality is anathema to the theist, as long as the divine source is their god.

I would agree, since they never seem to have a problem with the ultimately subjective nature of their morality when I point it out to them. The question remains, though, what exactly are they demanding of morality when they place the demand on it that it be "objective"?

But are you headed toward an argument for an objective non-theistic basis of morality, or not?

No, mostly I am just trying to get alternative views on what exactly is intended by the requirement that morals be "objective" in the context of such discussions as the ones I described. These discussions usually go badly, in part because the participants are often talking past each other. Often times, the discussion goes like this. The theistic objector (TO) will claim that, somehow owing to my atheism, I have no explanatory program to justify an objective morality. But then I will just be puzzled by this, saying that I am an atheist and yet my moral view is thoroughly objective. But then TO will claim that cannot be the case because I cannot point to God as a moral grounding. But then I will ask what does that have to do with anything and point out that, notwithstanding, my view entails that things like moral status and the truth values of moral claims in no way depend on anyone, including God. But this does not at all pacify TO's concern. So, clearly, TO and I have very different understanding of what is intended by the term 'objective' here. According to TO, for morals to be "objective" it requires God. But why? God, in a philosophical sense, is a subject. Why would some thing's being objective require a subject? Clearly they intend the term in some other fashion. Of course, there are many ways that the term 'objective' can be intended in various discussions, but I am specifically interested in how it is intended here. They intend it in a way such that only God's existence (no other subject's existence) can fulfill it, and I am asking for viable interpretations of this. My best guess currently is that it requires a role only a uniquely powerful agent such as God can fulfill; and I would guess this is a role that involves meting out retributive justice.

But I think if you are going to assert that theistic moral development cannot reach as high a level of maturity as non-theistic moral development, that assertion needs some backing.

I would agree, but I have never, ever made such an assertion. My arguments against theistic moral development concern only a specific locus of theistic moral views, a subset of so-called theological voluntarism; and they also do not concern general comparative claims between theistic and non-theistic moral systems. My other thread is prefaced with some such cautionary points. It is not at all my view that theistic moral development cannot reach very high levels, as high or even higher than non-theistic systems. And it is also not my view that all non-theistic moral views lend themselves to moral development, either; the opposite, actually. My argument is against only a specific set of theistic moral views, which I think are particularly and egregiously antithetical to healthy moral development. Again, I think this is clarified a bit further in the other thread.

Originally posted by sonship
That fact of the matter is that as a big sinner that I am, many times I would prefer that God wasn't that good and would let me slide. I have no immediate motivation to want to give an account to God for some of the things I have done.

So that God is eternally righteous and pure sometimes I may like and frankly, sometimes it gives me much concern.
...[text shortened]... m Harris is no competition I think.

I stop here.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Think again.

Perhaps that is because you have convinced yourself, or are trying very hard to convince yourself, that the existence of God is "bizarre."

I did not say that I think the idea of God's existence is bizarre. What I take to be bizarre here are (1) the idea that your particular conception of morality (and some closely related ones) is an objective one and (2) the idea that God's existence is required for there to be objective morality.

Discrimination of right from wrong does require a mind.
Decision to do right from wrong or vica versa does require a will.
Personhood of one kind or another is involved in morality.

All granted. But none of this even remotely implies that a mind, or a will, or personhood of one kind or another is required for the actual determination of moral status or the determination of the truth values of moral claims. I am not talking here about just the ability to discriminate between what is right or wrong in a looser sense of "determining", which as you point out does require a mind; I am talking about what, constitutively, actually makes something right or wrong.

If you are at school or work on a job, eventually you realize that someone is above you in some capacity. You also are above someone else in some capacity. Instead of robbing your supervisor of the responsibilities which are rightfully his, you could let him simply occupy that position which is his and you yours.

I already do that, thanks. But, of course, my supervisors do not literally make it such that the rules of the workplace and right and worth my following. They just help enforce rules that are justified on the basis of independent objective reasons that explain why the rules conduce to our working well together. So, my supervisors are inessential to the constitutive nature of these rules. Of course, your view entails the opposite about God (but, curiously, not about any other persons or agents).

How about we just let God be God ?

Sure, sounds good. But the question remains: why is God required for there to be "objective" morals? His existence is required for "objective" morals…why exactly?

Your error seems in wanting to define God as less than a Being for whom no greater could exist.

You're losing me, man. Not just with this statement but with the vast majority of the rest of your posts here. Just please answer the question I posed above: why is God required for there to be "objective" morals? His existence is required for "objective" morals…why exactly?

Originally posted by LemonJello

I don't think the ultimately subjective nature of an authoritative divinely sourced morality is anathema to the theist, as long as the divine source is their god.

I would agree, since they never seem to have a problem with the ultimately subjective nature of their morality when I point it out to them. The question remains, though, what ...[text shortened]... healthy moral development. Again, I think this is clarified a bit further in the other thread.

Thank you for the extensive reply. It clears up my thinking. I would like to comment on your "So, clearly, TO and I have very different understanding of what is intended by the term 'objective' here. According to TO, for morals to be "objective" it requires God. But why? God, in a philosophical sense, is a subject. Why would some thing's being objective require a subject? Clearly they intend the term in some other fashion."

I think these theists you refer to here, view God as the creator of all which is the case (all facts), including moral facts, and if they agree that God is a subject, these created facts do not depend on any created subject for their facticity. In a way, they view God's subjective reality -- the reality God chose to create -- as our objective reality.

I will continue to follow this thread hoping it does not reach an impasse.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, you couldn't. Sure, you could CLAIM to believe in Unicorns, but you'd be lying.

Who's the Omniscient One now.......... do you understand the meaning in context of the Koine Second Class Conditional?

You're losing me, man. Not just with this statement but with the vast majority of the rest of your posts here. Just please answer the question I posed above: why is God required for there to be "objective" morals? His existence is required for "objective" morals…why exactly?

I will attempt to reply to this after some time.

I am locating some of your vocabulary usage. And I will examine at least what some have answered in reference to your particular kind of terminology.

Originally posted by LemonJello
One thing I have often seen in this forum is the claim that God's existence is required for there to be "objective" morality. Of course, this is typically issued by a theist who is intent on undermining secular ethical accounts that claim objective foundations. And, of course, this theist typically operates under the assumption that his own account of m ...[text shortened]... on punishment and retribution.

I am looking for alternative viewpoints or interpretations....

Plato would blink if he was aware of the mainstream exoteric Christian view of Justice. Because, if indeed justice is nothing but Harmony (Rep. 4, 434c) and Works (doing one’s own job, Rep. 4, 443b), and if indeed the soul has three parts (Appetitive: hungry for immoral gratification, Spirited: courageous, vigorous and with strong volition, Rational: evaluates and conducts balanced decisions aiming to the Good of the whole soul), and if indeed a soul has to have some sort of hierarchy in order to stay in the just path, then the liturgy of the King Philosopher can be perfectly conceived by an ultra Platonic-Aristotlean Christian thinker (Aquinas) as the liturgy of G-d whose Will is mirrored in the Works of the King Philosopher. You see, due to the fact that the point in this context is anyway the real understanding of the Forms (in our case: the understanding of the essence and the mechanism of Justice), thanks to a specific procedure (Grace) the soul/ Christian believer is suggested that goes beyond the stage of thought and conceives an understanding of the true Forms; and the true form of Justice is thus conceivable at a level that is both understood by the human beings and at the same time a transcendental product (at this level Man is not anymore Physicos, according to the Christian dogma).

Indeed, Plato was sure that the King Philosopher’s soul could reach this level of understanding after huge difficulty and vast education, whilst our Christian friends appear to be sure that solely when the believer’s soul reaches that intellectual height of understanding (thanks to the Christian dogma, that is) one is no longer interested in the common ideas and perceptions about Justice, but instead one knows, thanks to Grace and to one’s faith and volition, the true form of Justice and seeks to guide everybody towards the Truth and Justice of G-d. This way, they appear to believe for one that the objectivity of the Divine Justice holds by means of a collective universal subjective consensus, and for two that the transcendental subjective will of G-d becomes an undisputed universal objectivity.

The default Orthodox Christian thesis is this: Deep conviction (thanks to analysis, faith to the dogma and free volition) that Harmony is existent among G-d, Man and Nature. The core belief is that Kosmos is supposed to be an intelligible whole unified by the common reference of the beings that compose it to the divine originating principle known as Logos, who is personal, transcendent and creator. The personal divine Logos (the Wisdom and Word of G-d) is the origin and transcendent intelligible exemplar of the universe, and in addition the agent who maintains it in a harmonious unity and leads it to its end. The objectivity, in other words, lays in the dynamism of Logos as the sole ground of the full realization of all beings, and this dynamic orientation is supposed to be the objective divine government that realizes within time the plan of divine providence; and of cource Justice, Love etc are all parts of the dynamism of Logos.


But: Does this string of thoughts can be considered objective?
And also, does your moral view (and/ or anybody’s moral view) is thoroughly objective?

Methinks all views are purely mind-dependent and fully subjective😵

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Who's the Omniscient One now.......... do you understand the meaning in context of the Koine Second Class Conditional?

I am fairly sure I know the meaning of 'Koine Second Class Conditional', and I agree with SwissGambit that you would not be able to make such a choice and that when you claimed that you had, you'd be lying - and I don't need to be Omniscient to know this.

Originally posted by LemonJello
One thing I have often seen in this forum is the claim that God's existence is required for there to be "objective" morality.

I believe that in these discussions there is some confusion as to what the word 'morality' means.
I often use it to refer to issues related to causing harm to others or preventing harm to them - and when this may be considered 'right' or 'wrong'. However, I think many people use a much broader meaning covering 'right' or 'wrong' behaviour in other contexts.
I would say that the former meaning is inherently Objective by definition and what may be subjective is specific interpretations of it based on context.
The latter meaning is necessarily subjective as it is generally a set of norms or standards that a given individual follows based on a range of considerations.
So the former is objective regardless of the existence of a god, and is not changed by the existence of a god.
The later is subjective even with the existence of a god, because if you choose to follow a gods directives that is your subjective choice for the basis of your norms.

I think we should also not confuse the former meaning of morality where harming others may be considered a morally bad action, with whether or not an individual chooses to act morally. So an individual may have as his norms (as per the latter meaning) something that is considered immoral in the former meaning.
Put another way, we may all agree that it is morally wrong to kill innocent babies for no reason, and this can be explained logically from the definition, but this does not in any way explain our motivations for acting morally in the first place.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Perhaps that is because you have convinced yourself, or are trying very hard to convince yourself, that the existence of God is "bizarre."

I did not say that I think the idea of God's existence is bizarre. What I take to be bizarre here are (1) the idea that your particular conception of morality (and some closely related ones) is an ob ...[text shortened]... r there to be "objective" morals? His existence is required for "objective" morals…why exactly?

In analyzing Metaethics the meaning of moral statements, would you describe your view as following Noncognivist or Cognitivist Theory ?

If a Congnitivist do you consider that you follow a Subjectivist theory or an Objectivist theory ?

Thanks

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that in these discussions there is some confusion as to what the word 'morality' means.
I often use it to refer to issues related to causing harm to others or preventing harm to them - and when this may be considered 'right' or 'wrong'. However, I think many people use a much broader meaning covering 'right' or 'wrong' behaviour in other contex ...[text shortened]... ion, but this does not in any way explain our motivations for acting morally in the first place.

So from Platonism (some time ago you were strongly thinking that the numbers have inherent existence instead of being merely mind-dependent constructions, and we had a conversation about this matter) you evolved to the Correspondence Theory -a belief/ definition/ theory etc is true if it corresponds to the given facts. So methinks you will enjoy Tractatus to the hilt;

Anyway; I 'm sure objectivity is non-existent
😵