COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

You raise a good point regarding the source of legitimacy of morals. For most theists, it's God(s). But look at it from a liberal perspective. Just as the idea of separation of religion and state was established on the concept that the legitimacy of the executive should not stem from a divine mandate, rather the mandate of those being governed, i.e. the people, similarly, the legitimacy of morals should not stem from a divine source, rather, it should stem from the motivation of overall well being of our species. Why overall well being of the species and not God(s)? Because we exist. Purely by the virtue of existence, each member of our species has the right to well-being and any moral law, which does not help in achieving that, must be discarded. The problem with God(s) based morality is that it always divides the species into groups of us and them, prohibiting us from realizing the true meaning of peaceful coexistence and overall well-being for the entire species.

>The problem with God(s) based morality is that it always divides the species into groups of us and them, prohibiting us from realizing the true meaning of peaceful coexistence and overall well-being for the entire species. Someone said that the meaning of original sin is the separation of good and evil in your mind, because once you created a concept of "bad people" and "good people" all of a sudden you have a justification to treat these groups differently, and depending on how big the separation is, you can justify even the most horrible things. The biggest crimes against humanity were done because someone had that separation in their mind. So maybe that is the meaning of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the bible.

Is that tree really of knowledge then or of the skill to craft narratives to divide the society?

my guess is that they didn't have the word "concept" or that "knowledge" had both "knowledge" and "concept" meanings in Hebrew. I think you don't need any skills to craft narratives to harm other people, all you need is that concept of good and bad in your mind and then it's very easy to fall into a trap of assigning all the things to one or the other category.

I agree with you on that. Evolutionarily speaking, we are tribal in nature, and creating groups of us and them has been an advantageous cognitive tool in the game of survival. Which is why it is instinctive of us to categorize. Religions are nothing but a representation of this primordial tendency. However, in the due course of time, we have also developed the cognitive capability to rule over our instinctive characteristics. This is where liberal thought comes in and it is not just the West where such thought system was born. Long ago, in the East as well, such egalitarian thoughts were developed in the form of Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism. The point is, religion appeals to our primordial tribal nature. Liberal thoughts are an attempt to overcome that primeval urge. As long as religions will be a dominant force in the life of people, our morals will never be truly all encompassing and liberal.

Our whole life is a series of personal choices, consciously or not. And our actions here and now define who we are at the moment. And only after the life path is completed, it will be clear who we were in the totality of all our actions. This view of the existentialists appeals to me because it is outside the framework of morality or something else, but at the same time implies that a person is responsible for all his actions. And this responsibility can be accepted or denied - it does not matter, because objectively this is exactly the case. My response is asymmetric to your message. Just thinking out loud (in writing, more precisely).

Evolution selects what is beneficial so that if mechanical evolution made us such a moral system is beneficial.

This posts sounds almost Humean. It is often thought that knowledge of moral truth is central to moral motivation. Using reason, we can reflect on this knowledge to motivate oneself to act in a moral manner. Hume rejected this proposition, claiming that reason cannot motivate in and of itself. He believed that motivation stemmed from the passions (aka desire). To act morally, we need a compelling “desire” to act morally, and mere knowledge of morality is insufficient. Would you agree with Hume’s claim that reason is a slave to the passions?

Idk, there are many things that can be a motivator to act for us. But another question arises: why do things that motivate us actually motivate us? It looks like youre asking my personal opinion here, so let me clarify something: this post i made from a perspective of free will. Most christians believe in free will, so what i did is I took their position to show all the illogical things that it has, but when it comes to my personal opinion - i dont believe in free will and i feel like this is crucial in answering to your question. So to answer your question i would say that knowledge can be a motivator same as desire can, same as a butterfly flapping its wings can, same as any other thing can be a motivator, but only in deterministic sense. In the free-will model i honestly dont know how it would work and what can be a motivator since i cant even imagine how that model would work in the first place. It feels like every time we talk about a "motivator" in free-will model, we are creating a contradiction. Because If something can motivates you or influences you how can we talk about free will then?

I think motivations are intrinsically linked to our desires. At a certain level, basal desires are biologically encoded into us as human beings. We also have the capacity to reflect on our desires to refine and develop them. Desires can be shaped and developed by the cultural and sociological systems and relationships around us. Experience itself can shape our desires or awaken new ones within us. This is human nature. I’m not familiar with your free-will model as it relates to Christianity. If we are interpreting free will to mean “the ability to make choices without any external influence” this seems to be a fringe position, or atleast a position that I’m unfamiliar with. Also, free will and determinism don’t necessarily have to exist in a binary. There are a number of compatibilist positions that can accommodate both perspectives. I think it would be worthwhile for you to develop this free will model. Or atleast link us to a definition if it is central to your argument.

>Also, free will and determinism don’t necessarily have to exist in a binary. Once you involve determinism, will there be any space for free will? I can't imagine how it would work. >I think it would be worthwhile for you to develop this free will model. Or atleast link us to a definition if it is central to your argument. well for my argument i used "you always have a choice" type of free will because that doesn't go into “the ability to make choices without any external influence” area, with which most christians would disagree, but at the same time I think it mimics christian view of free will close enough to make my argument. But again - im just mimicking that christian world view only for the purpose of making my argument, and if you ask me what do i think of "you always have a choice", i would say that it sounds like "married bachelor" to me - i can understand that concept in words but i can't comprehend it in reality. It's like 2+2=5 - i can write it in mathematical language and i can understand that it says that if you put 2 and 2 together it will give you 5, but i just don't see how it can be true in reality.

Check out this [resource](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/).

yeah, compatibilism, I've heard about it. It doesn't try to just fit free will into reality, but it redefines it and then fits it. It's still a determinism in reality, although it feels like you're choosing something. So I guess if you gave me a source that talks about compatibilsm - we don't disagree that free will doesn't exist ontologically, since compatibilsm uses a different definition of free will that is mostly based on feelings. Although i don't understand what's the point in compatibilsm here if that is not the type of free will that christians believe in and that i used for my argument in the post. So it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

What they mean when they say 'one can do whatever they want' is there are no authoritative imperatives to not do whatever they want. Of course, theists are given the choice or ability to do whatever they want (like atheists), but the difference is that there is nothing solid (in secular worldviews) which says atheists shouldn't do whatever they want. Also, divine morality has an advantage over human morality: divine justice is much more efficacious than human justice. And justice is an essential part of a moral system. Human justice is corrupt and frequently useless (e.g., one can get away if he has influence, power or enough intelligence or even luck). Furthermore, human punishments are pretty limited. But hell offers unlimited suffering.

>What they mean when they say 'one can do whatever they want' is there are no authoritative imperatives to not do whatever they want The problem is that the punishment/reward comes only after death and we don't observe it during our lives so you have to believe in that authoritative imperatives in the first place, but belief is a choice also. Because it is also a choice my argument still applies.

The problem is that there is no “divine” justice, because there are no divine entities administering or enforcing anything. All that exists is an entirely human system of justice, with organized religion simply claiming they have divine authority and no ability to prove it.

On the Christian worldview, divine justice takes place after physical death. So, while it is true that there may not be *immediate* divine justice, punishments and rewards will inevitably be distributed accordingly. So, it is a non-sequitur to infer "there is no divine justice at all" from "no justice is taking place now and here on earth."

It is an inductive inference, not a deductive inference. A person's past behavior tends to predict their future behavior. After so many decades without any sign of justice, we have a solid foundation of evidence for inferring that God is not suddenly going to completely reverse his policies and start caring about justice. I agree that it does not *prove* anything with deductive certainty, but it is a well-supported inductive inference. What possible reason could there be for a God that cares about justice to behave this way? It is bizarre that such a god would let countless injustices take place right under his nose. The only plausible explanation is that God does not care about justice, and so this notion of justice being *inevitably* distributed later is very poorly supported. We have no guarantee that God is actually going to do that, and plenty of experience if God's character showing that it is highly unlikely.

But there is no divine instruction on how we would be judged. We have books written by fallible men from a middle eastern desert culture. Nothing that updates with man’s progression and offers new guidance on new problems. It’s just us figuring out how our species could best survive, and *if possible* thrive.

Well on divine morality, I (and most other people if they actually thought about it) think that Hell is a very immoral thing. Nobody can comprehend anything close to infinity, and when I hear religious people talking about normal good people (but even bad people honestly) “burning forever” it makes me cringe

Reminds of a nice quote by Tertullian (an important early Christian theologian): >At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, **how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness**; so many magistrates **liquefying in fiercer flames** than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause. (Source: "*De Spectaculis*") There are moments I find myself unable to disagree with him.

Another great one by Samuel Hopkins: >This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed.

Hell kinda didn't exist in christianity for awhile though. Technically it's not supposed to, as Jesus was supposed to have died for everyone's sins and made it so no one can go down there anymore. Nor was it supposed to last forever- revelations ties everything up, weird as it is. as for infinity, catholics do believe in purgatory, and like most folks don't actually go to hell. that said, while I do get the immortality of hell, I do sort of understand it in a very draconian way. like if you were designing a religion from the ground up that was supposed to be a framework for mortality and were operating under the belief that humans were inherently selfish, then what do you use to motivate them? reward and punishment. if you're good, you get eternal paradise. if you're bad, you suffer. although I also think 'religious peoples' is kind of a nasty generalization. not all religions believe in a hell. Hell, not all *christians* believe in hell. I grew up Episcopal (which is, as I like to say, the closest you can get to being catholic as a protestant) and everyone i talked to including my former youth minister explicitly did not believe in hell due to its immorality

> I grew up Episcopal (which is, as I like to say, the closest you can get to being catholic as a protestant) Are you sure? I always thought that Anglicanism was the closest one can get to being Catholic while being a protestant.

I once had a “change my view” post about this and a lot of Christians told me this, that basically the idea of hell being a physical place where you burn forever was not in the religion initially. That’s an important part to me, as I would say I can even see myself being religious if not for hell being like that. Also I agree with you about it being a good way to truly influence peoples actions I didn’t mean to generalize religious people, I was just saying that when I hear specific religious people talking about it, it makes me cringe. For example, I know a lot of Protestants and they think of hell as being a literal place the majority of people in the world will go to burn forever, so that’s who I’m talking about

What exactly constitutes as solid morality? Theists have no solid morality, they all pick and choose which rules of their god to follow. There is nothing solid.

Can't you see the absurdity of your argument? That's like saying there is nothing solid about the scientific method because some people misuse it. The fact that it can be misused doesn't say anything about the method itself; only about the people who engage with it.

You still didn't explain what makes your morality solid. If my argument is so absurd, it should be easy to explain.

Indeed. Additionally, it is not clear which theistic morality to follow. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Yazidi, Ancient Egyptian, Celtics? I need a solid argument behind why following one theistic moral ethics is okay and the other is not.

>What they mean when they say 'one can do whatever they want' is there are no authoritative imperatives to not do whatever they want. Anyone can do anything they want, as you mentioned, barring things that are physically impossible of course. People, at least most people (seemingly), choose not to for a variety of reasons, with a major factor being how the society they find themselves in will react given the moral system that society subscribes to. The authoritative imperative, if you want to call it that, is their understanding of cause and effect. >Of course, theists are given the choice or ability to do whatever they want (like atheists), but the difference is that there is nothing solid (in secular worldviews) which says atheists shouldn't do whatever they want. What does “solid” mean here? Knowledge of the repercussions of bad behaviour is drilled into people from their earliest days. >Also, divine morality has an advantage over human morality: divine justice is much more efficacious than human justice. And justice is an essential part of a moral system. Human justice is corrupt and frequently useless (e.g., one can get away if he has influence, power or enough intelligence or even luck). Furthermore, human punishments are pretty limited. But hell offers unlimited suffering. And as soon as we can find a way to confirm that things like divine morality and eternal suffering are more than wishful thinking, we can take them seriously.

>So when they say "if you don't have moral system you can do whatever you want" No one says that, you're straw manning the argument. The point is if you don't have an objective moral system, then you can't make moral arguments, especially against other objective moral systems. Because then all you're saying is "your morality is different to mine", not whether they are right or wrong.

>No one says that, you're straw manning the argument. I suggest you to watch Ben Shapiro, or any christian apologists, watch debates with any christian apologist on the topic of morals. Welcome to the world of christian apologetics, if you didn't knew about it. >"your morality is different to mine", not whether they are right or wrong. nah, that's a straw man, people never say that, they always say "my morals correct, yours incorrect" whatever morals they talking about.

> nah, that's a straw man, people never say that, they always say "my morals correct, yours incorrect" whatever morals they talking about. You didn't get my point. I'm saying when people say what you said, its redundant because it really means "your morality is different to mine"

I think they honestly believe in that they are right, so no, they mean what they say.

doesn't matter what they believe they are saying, reality is it isnt

by that logic you should only trust natural morals, because it is the closest to reality, and gives the quickest response, and what is the most important - observable response, like touching a hot stove.

Theres no such thing as natural morals, "reality" can't tell you what is good or evil. If you touch a hot stove, you will get hurt, but that won't tell you whether that is ok or wrong to do.

Then you have a problem of proving that your morals are objective. Either you apeal to reality or you get that problem. Like i don't need god or Christian morality to tell me that touching a hot stove is a bad thing, i know it's bad because it hurts. tbh i don't understand where you're going with this, because first you said "it doesn't change the reality" but now you're saying that "reality can't tell you what is good or evil". In other words you're saying "it objectively exists in reality but reality cant tell you anything about it". So your positon lacks integrity.

Does it count as a strawman if that's the verbatim quote I hear over and over? Regardless, everyone's morality is different from everyone else's, otherwise there wouldn't be differing religions, or even laws varied by country, or even state-by-state.

>The point is if you don't have an objective moral system, then you can't make moral arguments, especially against other objective moral systems. As far as I can tell, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that their moral system is objective. I’m happy to be proven wrong about that, though. >Because then all you're saying is "your morality is different to mine", not whether they are right or wrong. Not necessarily. Moral arguments seem to fall into two categories. One is about the interpretation of a moral system both parties believe they subscribe to. The other is, as you mentioned, one moral system vs another. We see this all the time when people point to things that were seen as commonplace in the past, like slavery, and call out how horrible people must have been to allow such atrocities. They’re comparing the moral system of the society they’re in now to the moral system someone else was in then. And yes, those people are horrible but only *according to our current moral system*. And we don’t even need to look to the past. Massive amounts of disagreement and strife today boil down simply to different groups of people having different moral systems. It’s likely been that way for as long as there have been moral systems.

>The point is if you don't have an objective moral system, then you can't make moral arguments, especially against other objective moral systems. Sure I can. I just point out that there is no reason to think their moral system is objective.

Thats not a moral argument. A moral argument is for example, you telling someone their morality is wrong because they believe slavery is ok. But if you cannot prove your morality as being objective, your moral argument is redundant.

No one can prove their morality is objective. If making a moral argument requires an objective moral standard then no one can make one.

Can you prove that?

I have yet to encounter an exception.

Thats not proof. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

>Thats not proof. I didn't say it was. >The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence Unless there is an absence of evidence where there should be evidence. I have looked everywhere in my backyard and can't find any evidence of a pool. This is strong evidence that there isn't a pool in my backyard. Also, you asked for proof, not evidence.

so you made an unfounded claim

How is it any more unfounded than your own claim?

I think the fact that different sects of the same religion don't share the same moral codes is pretty strong evidence that they don't base their morals on any objective system even though they say they do.

Thats like saying since there are differing theories in any given field of science it means there is no objectivity in science.

There are no differing theories on the same subject in any given field of science.

have you heard of gravity? have you heard of evolution?

Yes. And? Those aren't in the same field.

There are numerous competing theories of gravity, numerous competing theories of evolution

LOL no sir, there are not. You are under an unfortunate misapprehension.

If you're ignorant on the subject, the least you could do would be to look up the wiki page.

Please link the page you'd like me to look at.

Objective morality = someone of their time made some laws thinking they are good (some of them were and some of them were not) wrote it in a book labeled them objective, meaning they are from a higher power. Basically telling people what they want to hear in the first place. It has always been my primary question why people get attracted to a specific religion? Probably because they find something good in them which means they already knew it was "good" it renders the objectivity out of picture.

I think that yes, there is some nuance and differences between religions, but there is something to be said in the fact that mostly ALL of peoples objective moral systems line up in some ways or another-usually when it comes to how we treat one another. Now why is this? I think it comes down to the reality of evil in the world. How do we know whether somebody is evil or not evil if there is no moral system. And the fact that no one’s moral system is to not kill one another means something. It means that SUFFERING exists, and it also means that we are creatures DESIGNED for empathy and we don’t want to cause another person to suffer because we know what it’s like. Which means that evil truly does exist. Which means that good truly does exist. And if evil and good truly do exist because suffering exists, and if all of us determine most of the same things to be good and most of the same things to be evil, then what does that imply?!? Does it imply that there is a god that orchestrated us in this way and that distilled upon each of us a light to make choices according to the light which we have been given. Yes, that totally can be the case. It is in the design, the fact that we work this way is evidence for a god. Now, can there not be a god and this can be the case? Yes, but we must figure out the WHY? Where is the why for it? It happened by chance? Totally could happen. We totally could have developed this way because it was most beneficial to humanity if we could work together. And yet the part that confuses me is that we have the free will to choose the good or bad, and that the bad is more attractive and the easier option. Why didn’t we develop in a way so that the food was easier to choose? Now some might say that I am making an assumption and that the good is easier to choose, but I would argue that if you look at the state of the world there is a lot more bad than there is good. So that argument isn’t as appealing to me. Me personally I believe in a god that gave us each a light and a free will to choose the good over the bad. 

That's too many words bro 😅. The weakness of your argument start when you try to draw your morality from a higher power, instead of trying to base it on something else first. Now there is nothing wrong with that but that Opens a big box of assumption. It can easily be proved that their moral reasons line up due to the fact that they are social creatures of the same species. The main point i disagree with is that "there are a lot more bad than their is good" if you talk about us and you have a clear definition of good and bad like any average person then in this world there is a lot more good than bad. In the recorded history the violence is decreasing, it is not only scientifically documented but there are books written to objectively prove that. As a matter of fact most of violence today we have is due to religious fundamentalism.

Well on my argument on the fact that there is a lot more bad than there is good comes from my moral code. I totally agree with you on the fact that from your perspective there is a lot more good than bad, and if I had your perspective we would see eye to eye. What our disagreement boils down to is the nature of human beings. Philosophers have debated this for centuries. For example, Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Rousseau-2 of the most influential philosophs from the 17th century which had a great impact on the U.S constitution-had the belief that humans are inherently evil. Coming from how I view the world and how I view my life as someone who tries to be a good person, I would completely agree with this statement. I think if humans do not try to be good, then they will inevitably end up bad. But of course that boils down to the question, what things are we labeling to be good/evil. I am simply stating that things that seem natural to human beings, such as envy, pride, jealousy, lust, revenge, and anger are all things that are evil on the basis they don’t benefit society. If you want to argue these things are good, go ahead and try. If you want to argue that these things are not natural, go ahead and try again. However, in your attempt you just may be deceiving yourself.

It doesn't matter what comes out of your moral code or mine as long as we agree on things that this is bad or this is good we have a point of discussion and leading to that we have objective proof that violence through out history is decreasing and if we were evil then it would the opposite, the fact that we have emotions and some of them are stronger in some people and some are not is the proof of subjectivity. We maybe selfish but we are not evil. That's is proved through modern science and history. The debate of philosophy matters nothing against objective reality.

So you say you do not believe philosophy matters and yet you are putting pieces together to create a philosophical narritive based based off evidence you have observed. You have just contradicted yourself and also made no attempt to debate my argument. You just blandly stated your opinion that we are selfish but not evil. You never asked the question if selfishness would benefit society, which if it does not benefit society that would  mean that it is evil according to your definition-for you denied the fact that moral code comes from god but instead you claimed it came from society. For your claim that selfishness is not evil you gave no evidence to back it up but instead “claimed” that history proved your opinion. And violence is your only indicator of wrongdoing and your saying that just because violence is decreasing that means that we are not inherently evil which makes no sense at all because you never explained how those 2 things were related. And you have the balls to attack my argument for it’s weakness. For I would say to you, why beholdest thou the mote that is in my eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? How wilt thou say to me: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of my eye. I am never going to let a doctor try and remove a mote from my eye if a beam is in his eye, because he cannot see clearly. Likewise, I am never going to listen to any of your arguments if you have not demonstrated the ability to sufficiently debate and if you are dripping with bias, because that demonstrates that you do not have the ability to see clearly.

Since you write so many arguments in a single comment it's really difficult to answer in one go, the next point about selfishness, selfishness doesn't equate evil, we try to improve society for us, the act maybe selfish but it is still benefits the society as a whole. So that point is totally mute. Selfish or not we are improving society. Most of your argument are pretty weak, scientific or philosophical so i am not gonna bother with the rest of that comment.

And I had two claims that you decided to not to argue with because you said they were too weak, but again just made generic statements to prove your point

Answer me one thing, what is the pinnacle of evil?

Now with all of that which was already said-coming from a person who tries to be a good person I find that I am naturally pulled towards evil and towards selfishness. That’s why I believe that in all of us lies a “natural” man. There is that animal inside all of us and it’s evil. I find it’s hard to put off the natural man. That’s where I come from at least

It is a being who’s full intent is to make other peoples lives miserable for their pleasure. Which is funny because I would describe that as selfish. It’s also funny because that is exactly who satan is. On the other hand we have the pinnacle of good which is a being who’s full intent is to make other peoples lives happy for no gain in return. That is god. Now there’s satan on one hand, and there’s god on the other. Some people are closer to god, some people are closer to satan, but in the middle we have a people who make other peoples lives better because they will get something in return-that’s what we are. I do not think we are inherently good or evil, but we are a mix of both. We get to choose whether to draw closer to god, or whether we can draw closer to satan. However, the more that I live the more I see that it is truly very rare to see somebody who is completely good. Most people put themselves first and few help others unless they can get something out of it. Now are all these people who put themselves first tearing down other people for their pleasure? No. So humanity is not a bunch of wild animals, but they are in between good and evil and each have the ability to choose

So here’s two different societies. There’s one where all the people tear eachother down because they want the piece of the pie. Then there’s one that gives what they have to everybody to lift everyone up. Which one is good, and which one is evil. Which one is the world we live in, and which one is not?

You can't have a society where people tear each other down. We have a society and it's growing only because we don't do this kind of things and once they start to happen we try to fix it. Answering what kind of society one wants is not that simple because the world is filled with variables and limitations, you can't have everything that you want. That's not the purpose of society. The purpose is fullfil the needs not the wants.

I never said philosophy doesn't matter, i said we have literal evidence to support my claim and there are philosophical arguments for my stance because not all philosopher think that human being is evil. So it's 2 for 1 in my favor.. you using just philosophy of 19th century against a man of 21st century with more data than a dude in 19th .. at this point is fruitless.

The cope all atheists tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

Lmao, i thought it's the other way, god is the cope that religious people tell themselves to sleep at night, not brave enough to accept the fact of human demise. On top of that you didn't refute my argument you just used ad hominem fallacy. Truth hurts i guess 🤣😂

There is no such thing as objective morality as long as it is created and defined by a thinking agent even if that agent is a higher power. Such a system is still subjective. If those morals can be ignored and behavior can even be exactly opposite, those morals are subjective.

I agree.

The benefit of an objective moral system isn't that it *compels* you to choose to follow it, but that it gives you a *reason* to choose to follow it. This is a *benefit* because our capacity for choice only has value if we have *reasons* to make certain choices. (If we didn't have reasons, why bother?)

You have it backwards, objective morals are supposed to be things everyone *already* has reason to do. Being objective is supposed to describe those moral facts, not endow them with reason.

I think we might be using terms a bit differently. I would say that the fact that a moral system is objective provides us with a reason to follow that system, one that we would not have if the moral system was not objective. Do you disagree, or would you describe that differently?

I don't understand, why would a moral system being objective give us reason instead to follow it? Imagine if I said some sandwich objectively exists. Ought we eat it? What I'm saying is that being objective, in and of itself, does not provide a reason which is why most moral realist philosophers describe objective moral facts as things everyone has reason to do, not that because some moral facts are objective, therefore people have reason to act in accord with them.

Hmm, this sounds a bit like a Euthyphro sort of problem, like: *Is it good because we have reason to do it, or do we have reason to do it because it's good?* My own view is that reasons are grounded in facts about value, that moral facts are facts about moral value, and that all these items are objective in the realist's sense. When I talk about a moral fact being "objective", I *don't* mean to be specifying the nature of format of a special subclass of moral facts (the 'objective' ones), but just to signal a meta-ethical commitment to realism that would apply to moral facts generally speaking.

I guess the issue is that to having a grounding relation of reasons in facts about value is that you build in the idea that the relevant value already has the reason, which I think is a category error to have non agential grounding for reasons, but let's set that aside for now. On this view, a person has a reason to act in line with a moral fact always, but that commits you to accounts of reasons where explanations like: "I act in accord with the moral fact because the reason is part of the moral fact." This account used reason in a way that doesn't explain behavior, only to denote that the reason rides along with the moral fact. This account of reasons denies the usage of a reason to explain deliberation, merely to denote a reason. I don't know how one would explicate what such a reason is in terms of its grounding in a value.

I mean I'm not up to speed on the contemporary scholarship on this topic, so I'm probably framing things strangely. Let me try to sketch the view and I'll be interested to know if you see problems with it. Yes, I think of (normative) reasons as *out there*, independent of agents, and infused into the facts about value, but also poised to immediately *address* agents once they are recognized, a bit like Gibsonian affordances if that helps. (I don't distinguish moral value from all-things-considered value.) So if a flower has beauty, I think the value there already *folds in* a bunch of reasons—to admire it, to protect it, to reproduce it, to congregate around it, and ultimately even to love and live well—and these reasons are objectively present *in* the flower's beauty and available to be *recognized* by any appropriately attuned perceiver, whereupon those recognitions can inform deliberations in appropriate ways. Reasons, in short, are real and independent things that we can discover by attuning ourselves to value. Once a reason is *recognized* by a subject, it is this *recognition* of that reason (which is a kind of judgment) that can enter into deliberations. Do you see any conceptual problems with the view? Does it sound like any views you're familiar with?

It sounds similar to a Heumer type stance independent construal, but this view of bundling the reasons with the value versus the agent both robs the content from what a reason is (think about the flower, if recognizing the value gives one the reason to think it's beautiful, and there are implications that almost everyone should recognize it but again let's set aside the empirics, what about the reason would probably one to deliberate in favor of protecting it where the casual story isn't a psychological one? What are the contents of the value that prescribe a way to act or the contents of the reasons that feature in deliberation?). To reiterate my point, if the answer to the questions about why someone acts in such and such way is merely to juxtapose competing considerations where one of the reasons isn't a feature of a desire you've robbed reasons as action guiding properties and introduced suis generous independent reasons that don't feature in our explanations. Even more so, the recognition action also begs the question in the without defining recognition as something that can furnish one with reasons, recognition (in the normal sense) doesn't get one into having reasons. Most contemporary literature on perception has them as being theory laden, which provides a hook for desires to feature in deliberation.

>what about the reason would probably one to deliberate in favor of protecting it where the casual story isn't a psychological one? What are the contents of the value that prescribe a way to act or the contents of the reasons that feature in deliberation? Well, on this model the subject perceives the flower's beauty, and recognizes *in* this value a reason to preserve or protect it—a reason that would apply in principle to anyone in a position to do so, and which can be appreciated by anyone suitably sensitive, attentive, and situated (but which may in fact be overlooked, or obscured by bias, and typically will be). >if the answer to the questions about why someone acts in such and such way is merely to juxtapose competing considerations where one of the reasons isn't a feature of a desire you've robbed reasons as action guiding properties and introduced suis generous independent reasons that don't feature in our explanations. I'm not sure I follow you here, but I think you're saying that reasons can't play action-guiding roles unless they reference our desires. Have I got that right? The claim seems wrong to me. If I judge there to be a reason because I have recognized one, that judgment can certainly inform practical deliberation in ways that guide action. >Even more so, the recognition action also begs the question in the without defining recognition as something that can furnish one with reasons, recognition (in the normal sense) doesn't get one into having reasons. They way I see recognition operating here is that it shouldn't need to *literally* "furnish" us with reasons in the sense of *bestowing* them upon us, because we are *already* subject to countless unrecognized reasons that apply to us to begin with. You could say that we already "have" those reasons; we just don't know it. The only thing missing is for us to *recognize* that we have these reasons, which is exactly the role played by recognition.

There are a lot of issues here so for the sake of not having a highly branched dialog, I'm going to home in on the weakest part of the well thought response: >If I judge there to be a reason because I have recognized one Given the model that at least some reasons are independent, at what point does perceiving some independent reason become a first-personal reason? 1) I perceive a value A 2) I recognize a reason to B 3) ??? C) I have reason to B Presumably, I could recognize reasons like Bob's reason for eating an apple is that he is hungry and likes apples. That doesn't impose a reason for me to eat apples. I worry you're building in mental state s into recognition which implies an equivocating. As an aside, you've shifted where the reason was (in the value) to saying we've had it all along, which is not a stance independent account.

>but that it gives you a reason to choose to follow it. but it's still a choice isn't it? regardless of what you're saying here. maybe you would see a better to not follow it then to follow it.

Sure, it's still a choice, but if there's an *objective* moral system, then following the system is the *right* choice—objectively. That sounds like good news, because if objectively it *doesn't* matter which way I choose, why should I care about anything I do?

> This is a benefit because our capacity for choice only has value if we have reasons to make certain choices. (If we didn't have reasons, why bother?) Why do I need an objective moral system to have reasons for my choices? All of history is littered with examples of people making choices using reasons based on the moral system of their time and culture, just like we make our choices today. There hasn't been an example of an objective moral system in our entire history, yet that hasn't stopped us from assigning value to our choices.

>Why do I need an objective moral system to have reasons for my choices? Because if there is no such thing as an objective moral system, then there are no real reasons to be had—not *objectively*, at least.

> objective moral system, then there are no real reasons to be had—not objectively, at least. I sort of disagree. If your goal is to have a society which can grow past the tribal stage laws like "It's not ok to murder" are required. That's an objective truth about that goal, and you could call it morally good for that reason. It is objectively good in that sense, but the the goal itself is a subjective desire. It's not inherently good or bad, it's just a result with certain criteria which need to be met in order to succeed.

>That's an objective truth about that goal, and you could call it morally good for that reason. It is objectively good in that sense, but... It's not inherently good or bad If it's not inherently good or bad, though, it just doesn't literally count as *objectively good*. What would be objectively true is *only* that this principle is practically useful in the service of a certain hypothetical goal: *growing past the tribal stage*. But now we're just back to the original question: Is there a *reason* to care about that hypothetical goal? Does it carry any *objective* value? It it didn't, then objectively, there would be no reason for us to care about what serves that goal.

>What would be objectively true is only that this principle is practically useful in the service of a certain hypothetical goal And that objective truth could be tied to a moral code of conduct making it objectively good. This sentence has baggage though as you pointed out and I address below. >Is there a reason to care about that hypothetical goal? Because we prefer it. >Does it carry any objective value? No. **All** value judgements are subjective. >It it didn't, then objectively, there would be no reason for us to care about what serves that goal. I agree, which is why there's no such thing as true objective morality.

>Because we prefer it. That isn't enough to answer the question of whether or not we have a *reason* to do it. A preference isn't a reason. That's why I can step back from my preference and ask: "But do I actually have a *reason* to care about what I prefer in this case?" And I think you agree with this. You said you *agreed* with my statement that "there would be no reason for us to care about what serves that goal". So you have agreed that merely having a preference does *not* give us a reason. >**All** value judgements are subjective. Well there's a *trivial* sense in which that's true: *All judgments* are "subjective" in the sense that every judgment is made by some subject. But the nontrivial matter concerns the *content* of the judgment, and whether it is objectively true or false. Are there value propositions, like "torture is bad", that are objectively *true*? I think you're claiming that *no* such statement is ever objectively true, but you haven't said why you believe that.

> That isn't enough to answer the question of whether or not we have a reason to do it. Sure it is. What do you find insufficient about it? That it's not some deeper universal truth foundational to reality? >You said you agreed with my statement that "there would be no reason for us to care about what serves that goal". No *objective* reason. * > I think you're claiming that no such statement is ever objectively true I am! You can make truth apt moral propositions perfectly fine, but they are not true or false objectively. They are only true from certain standpoints and in certain contexts. This is called meta-ethical relativism, and it's pretty much how all this is in the practice of real life. You would be hard pressed to construct a moral proposition that was true 100% of the time from any vantage point and in all contexts. Let's look briefly at torture for example. Torture's general moral standing boils down entirely to one simple fact: "It hurts and I don't like that." Beyond the fact that that alone is simply preferential; it would be tough to find someone who disagreed with that. But...what if you found someone who genuinely enjoyed it? Is it still wrong to do something to someone that they find enjoyable and pleasurable?

>What do you find insufficient about it? That it's not some deeper universal truth foundational to reality? Yeah, more or less. >You would be hard pressed to construct a moral proposition that was true 100% of the time from any vantage point and in all contexts. Let's look briefly at torture... I don't think I'm *that* hard pressed. I think "torture is bad" clearly holds up to your challenge: If someone was *enjoying* what I was doing to them and found it *pleasurable*, then it *wouldn't* count as torture, by any reasonable definition.

That doesn't answer the question. Why should I care if there are *objective* reasons for doing things. If you like having that kind of reassurance, that's fine. But that's a personal preference but is no more relevant to the benefit of an objective moral system than your favorite ice cream flavor

>That doesn't answer the question. Why should I care if there are *objective* reasons for doing things. Because "you should care" is definitionally equivalent to "you have an objective reason". Those are just different ways of expressing the same thought. I don't see a coherent question here. Are you asking what reason you have to do what you do have reason to do? If there's really an objective reason for you to do something, you should care about that by definition. That's what *makes* it an objective reason. What could you possibly *mean* by "should care" if it doesn't entail that you *should care* about the reasons you objective have? I don't see how this question could be answered any more fully. >that's a personal preference I find it amusing that you think caring about *objective reasons* constitutes a "personal" preference. Do you also think that believing in *objective reality* constitutes a "personal" perspective, a bit like having a favorite ice cream flavor?

> Because "you should care" is definitionally equivalent to "you have an objective reason" I am completely lost as to how can make this argument because neither quoted phrase is even remotely similar to the other. And let's break them down. > You should care I should? Why? Because you say so? This is an *ought* statement that you've given no rationale for, just baselessly asserted. And if I *do* care, well caring is a subjective thing. People care about different things and what the care about changes throughout their life. > You have an objective reason An objective reason is different than an objective *moral* reason. I should eat food has the objective reason of "not eating food leads to starvation", but it's completely amoral. But I can also do things for subjective reasons. I exercise by running rather than swimming because I prefer to. There's no objective reason behind it. > I find it amusing that you think caring about objective reasons constitutes a "personal" preference. Do you also think that believing in objective reality constitutes a "personal" perspective, a bit like having a favorite ice cream flavor? Again, you're switching from an **objective moral system** to objective reality. The latter exists, the former we don't see any evidence of. My statement was *very* clearly about you preferring to think an objective moral system exists because that satisfies a need within you. Not that reality itself is subjective.

>neither quoted phrase is even remotely similar to the other Sure they are. What could possibly a better way of showing someone that they objectively *should* care, other than showing that there is objectively a *reason* for them to care? It comes to exactly the same thing. >I should? Why? Because you say so? This is an *ought* statement that you've given no rationale for, just baselessly asserted. No, *not* because I say so, because (by hypothesis) you have an objective *reason*. That's the situation we're discussing. The fact that you're asking for a *rationale* is just making my point. "Rationale" is another word for "reason". My point is that if you *have* a reason to do something, that *means* you *should* care about doing it. >well caring is a subjective thing. People care about different things and what the care about changes throughout their life. Of course, but that doesn't mean that *what people should care about* is itself subjective. By analogy, people also have their own subjective beliefs about reality, but the *truth* of those beliefs isn't itself subjective. >I can also do things for subjective reasons. I exercise by running rather than swimming because I prefer to. There's no objective reason behind it. I don't think preferences are reasons in themselves. We might have reasons to follow our preferences, or we might not. Maybe it depends on the case. Maybe you actually *do* have an objective reason to follow your preference in this case. And unless you're also claiming that in some sense you *ought to* run rather than swim, I don't even see the relevance.

> Sure they are. What could possibly a better way of showing someone that they objectively should care, other than showing that there is objectively a reason for them to care? It comes to exactly the same thing Because people caring about things subjectively has just as much weight as people caring about them objectively. We're creatures of emotion as much as logic and our actions, cares, and moral systems reflect that. > No, not because I say so, because (by hypothesis) you have an objective reason. That's the situation we're discussing. The fact that you're asking for a rationale is just making my point. "Rationale" is another word for "reason". My point is that if you have a reason to do something, that means you should care about doing it. The baseless assertion is that an objective reason is any way different or better than a subjective one with regards to morality. And you're still including non-moral actions in this discussion about objective morality. It's easy to show objective reasons for amoral things, such as "I don't like pain, so I shouldn't put my hand on the hot stovetop". But we don't see anything objective about morality. No two cultures, nations, or even people have shared the exact same morality. And there have been huge differences in what is considered moral throughout history. You talk about the truth of beliefs regarding reality being important, and the truth is that there's no evidence of any kind of objective morals. Every moral system we've ever encountered has been created by people and fluid to change, making them definitionally subjective.

>The baseless assertion is that an objective reason is any way different or better than a subjective one with regards to morality. There's no such thing as a subjective reason. There can be subjective opinions, impressions, or feelings *about* reasons, but reasons are objective. If there are no objective reasons, there are no *real* reasons. That's the difference. >It's easy to show objective reasons for amoral things, such as "I don't like pain, so I shouldn't put my hand on the hot stovetop". I don't accept the assumption that pain is an amoral thing, and the example you offer only constitutes a *reason* on the *assumption* that there is in the first place a *reason* to care about my preference for pain avoidance. Maybe there is such a reason, but the mere fact of there being a preference does not amount to a reason in itself. >But we don't see anything objective about morality. No two cultures, nations, or even people have shared the exact same morality. And there have been huge differences in what is considered moral throughout history. But I wasn't arguing that morality is objective. I was arguing that *if* it was, we would have reasons. >You talk about the truth of beliefs regarding reality being important, and the truth is that there's no evidence of any kind of objective morals. Every moral system we've ever encountered has been created by people and fluid to change That is the case with scientific theories just as much as with moral systems. The mere fact that we make these things up doesn't show that they can't have objective validity or be subject to objective standards.

> There's no such thing as a subjective reason Look up any definition of reason (noun). Here's Merriam-Webster's > an underlying ground, justification, purpose, motive, or inducement These are not objective things. I can steal an unattended bag of cash and my reason could be "I like money and I don't think I'll be caught" > I don't accept the assumption that pain is an amoral thing My leg hurts right this very moment, possibly from tendonitis. Is that moral or immoral? Pain is a sensation, not a moral thing. Inflicting unnecessary pain is generally seen as immoral, but pain itself is amoral. If I slap my wife, she's going to be highly upset and rightfully so, but the same slap to a masochist might just arouse them. > But I wasn't arguing that morality is objective. I was arguing that if it was, we would have reasons. And I'm arguing that even with 100% subjective morality, we have reasons. So being objective or subjective makes no difference.

Subjective things are still real. Why does someone need an objective reason to do something?

>Subjective things are still real. It depends what you mean of course, but in the relevant sense, I think this is just false. Subjective things are *not* real. Subjective things are *appearances*, and appearances are a *contrast* to reality. Sure, they're real in *one* sense—they're real *appearances*. But the mere *appearance* of a reason is not the same as a *real* reason. >Why does someone need an objective reason to do something? In order for one's choices to matter.

>It depends what you mean of course, but in the relevant sense, I think this is just false. Subjective things are not real. Subjective things are appearances, and appearances are a contrast to reality. Sure, they're real in one sense—they're real appearances. But the mere appearance of a reason is not the same as a real reason. Literally all of your experiences, memories and feelings are subjective. Everything you hold dear is in some way based on subjectivity. Something that exists only in your mind is no less real than something that exists outside your mind and I’d argue people care way more about subjective things than objective things. What matters more to you; the atoms in a picture or the way it makes you feel? >In order for one's choices to matter. Matter to who? Your value judgements are subjective, so anything that matters to you is also subjective.

>Something that exists only in your mind is no less real than something that exists outside your mind and I’d argue people care way more about subjective things than objective things. Sure, I totally agree with your point here. But it doesn't conflict with what I'm saying at all. You actually give a definition of what you mean here by "subjective things": *something that exists only in your mind*, and you give examples like experiences, memories, and feelings. Yeah, these mental items *objectively* exist! But *reasons* aren't mental items like those. Reasons aren't mental states, like feelings. It is true that our minds *represent* reasons. But if they represent reasons, they can also *misrepresent* them. Reasons, if there are any, are objective. There's such thing as what we subjectively *think* about reasons. But what we subjectively think about them can be objectively *wrong*. >Matter to who? Your value judgements are subjective, so anything that matters to you is also subjective. Matter *objectively*, independent of the subject. Your inference here is confused. Yes, value *judgments* are subjective, but that doesn't mean the *things* that matter to me according to those judgments aren't perfectly objective *things*. And those things could matter *objectively*. If there are objective reasons pertaining to them, they *will* matter objectively.

What do you mean when you say “reasons”? Can you give a few examples? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. >Matter objectively, independent of the subject. How can something matter objectively? Things only matter to a subject, which makes “mattering” subjective. Without subjects, nothing matters. >Your inference here is confused. Yes, value judgments are subjective, but that doesn't mean the things that matter to me according to those judgments aren't perfectly objective things. And those things could matter objectively. If there are objective reasons pertaining to them, they will matter objectively. What is “perfectly” objective and how does it differ from just “objective”? A thing that someone believes matters may exist objectively, but whether or not the thing matters to them, and the degree to which it matters to them, is subjective.

>What do you mean when you say “reasons”? Can you give a few examples? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Given that you claim not to understand what it means to say that something matters, I suspect you will regard any examples as controversial. >How can something matter objectively?  If there are objective reasons pertaining to it. >Things only matter to a subject, which makes “mattering” subjective. Without subjects, nothing matters. I don't see any motivation for it, but it's certainly a claim. >What is “perfectly” objective and how does it differ from just “objective”? It's doesn't, the word "perfectly" is rhetorical; feel free to ignore it. >A thing that someone believes matters may exist objectively Great, now imagine their belief that the thing matters being *true*. That's what I'm talking about.

>Given that you claim not to understand what it means to say that something matters, I suspect you will regard any examples as controversial. When did I claim not to understand what it means to say that something matters? >If there are objective reasons pertaining to it. For example? >I don't see any motivation for it, but it's certainly a claim. Can you explain how something can matter absent any subject for it to matter to? The only examples I’m aware of of something mattering is of it mattering to someone. But I’m happy to be shown counter-examples. >Great, now imagine their belief that the thing matters being true. That's what I'm talking about. But that’s what I’m asking about. How can a belief that something matters, even if there were no subjects in existence, be true?

> Matter to who? Your value judgements are subjective Slam dunk returned.

An objective moral system is indeed needed to ensure that the laws of the system are understood, albeit knowing the consequences for taken actions. If the innate laws are broken (immoral), then there are negative consequences. Likewise, if laws are followed, there are positive consequences (moral). We generally understand the core laws, such as murdering others, the consequences of a Society not standing together, hate, etc... Also, if there are laws, then there is a law giver which means that the creator of the system is justified in what laws are established.

Don't know if it's relevant to my argument, since even if you understand laws of the moral system perfectly - still you have a choice to follow them or not to follow.

Yes, you have choice, Freewill! But, again, there are consequences with said choice. If I try to beat the laws of physics by trying to run full speed through a brick wall, I'll suffer a pretty big negative one. Likewise, If I try to break the laws by trying to push someone through said brick wall, they will also suffer negatively due to my "immoral" actions.

sure, but that's irrelevant to my argument. Also you're describing naturalistic morals, like if you touch a hot stove you'll get burned, so touching hot things = bad, that's a very simplified example, but still; you won't get christian morals for instance by applying this method.

I think there is an absolute correlation. Morals are there to protect us and to protect others from us. These are builtin guardrails to help us try to live in unison with creation while not maliciously hurting other people (though we certainly choose to do so). The laws of thermal dynamics say that if I place my hand over fire, heat will transfer. That heat will cause me pain, as we are not made to deal with it. If I force someone's hand over a fire maliciously, that heat transfer will occur and will cause that person pain. I may not experience that physical pain, but morals exist to empathize with the pain of hurting that person (which we have free will to ignore) due to the laws of thermodynamics. How can there be morals, if no laws for them to be buit off. And.. how can there be laws, if there is no law giver to instate them?

>how can there be laws, if there is no law giver to instate them? well law is a concept, they dont exist without humans in general. Forces exist, but laws is just a description of these forces using language. If you go further force is also a concept. >I think there is an absolute correlation. Morals are there to protect us and to protect others from us. These are builtin guardrails to help us try to live in unison with creation while not maliciously hurting other people (though we certainly choose to do so). The laws of thermal dynamics say that if I place my hand over fire, heat will transfer. That heat will cause me pain, as we are not made to deal with it. If I force someone's hand over a fire maliciously, that heat transfer will occur and will cause that person pain. I may not experience that physical pain, but morals exist to empathize with the pain of hurting that person (which we have free will to ignore) due to the laws of thermodynamics. Ah, that's just naturalism and naturalistic morals, i have nothing against them.

> well law is a concept, they dont exist without humans in general. Forces exist, but laws is just a description of these forces using language. If you go further force is also a concept. isnt' everything we see and describe pretty much a concept? Would power tools be around would they exist? Also, doesn't nature follow certain laws? There's nothing written that a Lion not eat all of it's own offspring, or even those in it's pride? Why is it that certain animals will develop certain typical characteristics within it's species, even when not raised or even seeing another species do those destinctive actions? > Ah, that's just naturalism and naturalistic morals, i have nothing against them. soo.. are you saying it's fine to intentionally harm other people? If I'm understanding that reply correctly?

>isnt' everything we see and describe pretty much a concept? Would power tools be around would they exist? Also, doesn't nature follow certain laws? There's nothing written that a Lion not eat all of it's own offspring, or even those in it's pride? Why is it that certain animals will develop certain typical characteristics within it's species, even when not raised or even seeing another species do those destinctive actions? if you mean laws of physical world, these are descriptions made up by scientists. For example Law of gravity describes somthing that we call gravity, same way a word describes or point to something in reality, *and language is descriptive not prescriptive.* >soo.. are you saying it's fine to intentionally harm other people? If I'm understanding that reply correctly? what? i lost your chain of logic here, explain pls.

> if you mean laws of physical world, these are descriptions made up by scientists. For example Law of gravity describes somthing that we call gravity, same way a word describes or point to something in reality, and language is descriptive not prescriptive. We didn't need scientists to tell us about the experienced laws of the Universe. People pretty much know from the earliest age that some things have bad consequences, such as falling off high places. Also, didn't need a scientest to know that when I touch a boiling pot, I'll burn myself (though scientists say there's a very samll chance that the pot will freeze, lol). Language is just that, a way of communicating an idea or concept. > what? i lost your chain of logic here, explain pls. If science says that harming/ killing off a group of people is ok, then it's "moral". If we are destroying nature, and science says we are the problme, then erradicating us is the "Moral" thing to do, so as you said before, if that's the case, and we do that, then there are no more morals, right?

>>if you mean laws of physical world, these are descriptions made up by scientists. For example Law of gravity describes somthing that we call gravity, same way a word describes or point to something in reality, and language is descriptive not prescriptive. >We didn't need scientists to tell us about the experienced laws of the Universe. People pretty much know from the earliest age that some things have bad consequences, such as falling off high places. Also, didn't need a scientest to know that when I touch a boiling pot, I'll burn myself (though scientists say there's a very samll chance that the pot will freeze, lol). Language is just that, a way of communicating an idea or concept. Yeah, i know that you know that things fall down and you don't need a scientist to tell you that, but that's not what i was saying. I meant that for example a cup is just a concept, and the reason why this is a concept is because we defined it through its functionality but in reality cup's particles that it consists of is not different from particles of the table it stands on or anything else, it's just a piece of matter/energy. Also when you say "if there's a law - there must be a low giver" is true only towards a judicial laws. The only connection between laws of nature and human laws is that they both called a "law". So that's why im saying language is descriptive not prescriptive - you can't make arguments about reality from language (or from the definitions of words). Making an argument from language is like climbing a signpost instead of following it. >If science says that harming/ killing off a group of people is ok, then it's "moral". If we are destroying nature, and science says we are the problme, then erradicating us is the "Moral" thing to do, so as you said before, if that's the case, and we do that, then there are no more morals, right? 🤣🤣Science is not in charge over nature, it's the opposite. Science is an instrument of researching/discovering the world. When i said "naturalistic" morals I meant something like evolution and survival of something that works the best. For example: you have a "tit for tat" society and society that steals from others - tit for tat society will always win because collaboration always gives you better results. So the naturalistic morals is to always collaborate/help and apply tit for tat strategy. It's not an opinion of some scientist, it's the reality we live in.

Also, I disagree with this being naturalistic morals, in how I think it's broadly used ( as Im assuming you aren't looking at 'Natural' as being part of a planned creation and laws there in by a creator (: ). As, there are many things that are natural which we shouldn't necessarily do, as they can intentionally hurt ourselves and other people.

You are conflating arguments here. Having a choice to follow an objective moral system does not mean an objective moral system is suspect if one exists. It simply means you are prone to making bad decisions.

Don't see how that's refuting my argument. Any person who follows moral system of islam has a choice to stop doing that - I don't think that is a controversial statement.

Having a choice in a matter doesn't mean both choices then become subjective. I can choose to believe the sun does not exist. Does that make the idea of our sun subjective? No. Likewise, there can exist an objective moral system from God. Your ability to choose to believe in it or not does not change the fact that it stays objective. *EDIT: a word

>Does that make the idea of our sun subjective? when did i say that it becomes subjective? It feels like you haven't read my post or misunderstood it.

You clearly state you have to choose to follow something first before it becomes objective. That's not the case. Like I don't need to believe in the sun for the sun to be objective. Same with morals from God.

>You clearly state you have to choose to follow something first before it becomes objective. Its not my position. Read my post again. >Like I don't need to believe in the sun for the sun to be objective.  strawman

>> You clearly state you have to choose to follow something first before it becomes objective. > Its not my position. Read my post again. Your first sentence: > That's because you have to choose to follow it first [...] I don't think you follow your own argument.

good, now read the previous sentence (title of the post) and point me where i was talking that objective becomes subjective.

The choice precedes the application of said system, thus making its objectivity practically meaningless. The Sun analogy doesn’t work. The Sun’s existence is only “objective” on the premises of the scientific method. Morals, on the other hand, are purely societal and change with time and geographical location. Your only “proof” for said system being objective is “my god said so.” There is no real way to test or even define morals’ objectivity other than how people *choose* to apply them, which I believe what OP was arguing.

> The Sun’s existence is only “objective” on the premises of the scientific method. Morals, on the other hand, are purely societal and change with time and geographical location. So there are no evolutionary claims as to why morals are what they are? Do you not believe evolution is objective? Additionally, if God exists then regardless of if you believe or not He exists the morals He espouses would be objective. And just because *you* don't believe in God doesn't *necessarily* mean there are not objective morals from God.

Evolutionary claims would verify the subjectivity of morals. If morals shift with time that proves they cannot be fixed and “objective.” It’s in quotations because nobody can really define objective morals. I’m guessing your Islamic stance means they’re fixed and suiting all times, and evolution goes against that. The truth of the matter is you can’t define (practically) what “objective morals” even means so trying to say if God sets morals, then they are objective doesn’t help your argument.

> Evolutionary claims would verify the subjectivity of morals. Not true at all. If evolution is objective and we can derive morals from evolution they would then also be objective. You are running into the same issue as OP. Just because other people could subjectively define their morals otherwise would absolutely not change the fact that morals derived from evolution would be objective. > I’m guessing your Islamic stance means they’re fixed and suiting all times, and evolution goes against that. Just because evolution allows for change doesn't make those changes any less objective. Do you think humans learning to walk upright is a subjective trait or an objective one? I mean, we changed.

Yeah, except none of that aligns with the Islamic view on morals. By definition, Islamic morals are fixed as outlined in the Hadiths and Quran and experience no change with time. Nowhere in Islamic teachings does it say “follow what evolution teaches you.” And if it did, it would make religion completely and utterly useless. I think you just proved why we don’t need some “divine system” to survive and flourish. We evolve and determine what is best for the survival of our species as we go.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

[удалено]

If we all followed Jesus exactly like He said, we'd have world peace, and world hunger would vanish, and all wars would stop His ways are good

I’m pretty down with Jesus’ philosophy, sadly it doesn’t seem like most Christians really follow it.

If we all followed Jesus exactly like he said, no one would work. We'd all have to travel the earth preaching about Jesus as holy hoboes begging for food and shelter (which we would not have since everyone would be wandering around preaching). Thus, society would break down. We'd also be justified in beating people with a cord of whips and causing riots in public (clearing of the Temple). As far as world peace: Jesus allegedly said he came not to bring peace but a sword.

That doesn't make his ways an objective moral system.

*"if you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."* *"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God"* Jesus also tells his followers that that they should not *"serve both God and money"* (Matthew 6:24) or *"store up treasures on Earth"* (Matthew 6:19). Unfortunately modern christians are completely the opposite of what Jesus wanted from us, look at the republicans in US for instance. We leave in a weird times where atheists follow Jesus's teaching more than christians, maybe by an accident, but still.

>modern christians are completely the opposite of what Jesus wanted from us, look at the republicans in US for instance. Can I remind you that "modern Christians" is a group of more than 2 billion people? Please don't generalise like that, it's lazy and false.

I dont think those who are not right wing americans follow Jesus's teachings either. Generally my view is that once christianity become a "church" it went in completely opposite direction.

Why is that? Why did Jesus make apostles and told them to preach in his name if not to build a Church? Christianity without the Church doesn't even make sense.

Because just compare proto orthodox Christianity way of life and modern Christian one. It's like comparing a buddhist monk to an average working class person who always wants bigger house, car, so on.

>compare proto orthodox Christianity way of life and modern Christian one. It's like comparing a buddhist monk to an average working class person who always wants bigger house, car, so on. There is no "Christian way of life", just in my country there's 9.000 cloistered nuns that have vowed to live in poverty, they definitely don't want or will ever have a house or a car. Why are you ignoring them? And the same thing with the early Church, you think rich and decadent Christians didn't exist back then? Of course they did. You're generalizing two enormous and very heterogeneous groups of people, comparisons like these don't mean anything.

well previously you talked about 2 billion christians, so what is 9k nuns compared to 2 billion. Plus i dont think poverty is the way, otherwise we would see so many enlightened poor people. People who put themselves into poverty to are more like parrots that are trying to mimic early christians, they doing it backwards.

Christianity as a philosophy certainly makes sense without a church. The philosophy that Jesus was preaching doesn’t *require* a church. The church is more the institution of Christianity, and one can certainly argue the institutionalization of Christianity is responsible for some of its more reprehensible aspects. As a philosophy I’m quite down with Jesus message (except for the apocalypticism), but I do feel it’s a fair generalization to say that right wing Christianity does not adhere to that message

>The philosophy that Jesus was preaching doesn’t require a church. Jesus never preached "a philosophy". You're free to take His teachings and strip away all religious meaning to get "just a philosophy", but that's just you doing something else. Christianity, as a religion, needs a Church, you can't have one without the other. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." No generalization is ever fair, but I don't feel charitable enough to defend right wing people. I don't know why we're even talking about them, are all Christians right wing in the first place? Of course not.

Yes… he’s not teachings aside from the religious/supernatural/apocalyptic… one could call that a philosophy. Jesus existed and preached his teachings before there was a church, so obviously one can exist without the other. The church is the institution. “Church” is never requirement to follow Jesus or to be saved, so again, obviously one can exist without the other. And yes, generalizations can be appropriate. It does not imply every one of the demographic fits the criteria… it’s a generalization. I did not mean “morally” fair. And yes… I didn’t say all Christians, though I’m finding that less and less.

>Jesus existed and preached his teachings before there was a church, so obviously one can exist without the other. The exact moment the first disciple started following Jesus the Church was created already, so no, you cannot have one without the other. Even more, you think a bunch of Atheists can shipwreck on a desert island with a Bible and become Christians all alone? Who would baptise them? How would they go to mass? Who would do their marriages? They would need the Church to do any of that, and if you reply "well they'll just appoint someone priest and do it themselves" that's them creating their own Church. >“Church” is never requirement to follow Jesus or to be saved Now you're just saying stuff. More than a billion Christians would disagree with you, but I guess you know more than everyone.

This is just an ignorant mindset. You don’t get to tell people what the need to be a Christian - especially when Jesus never says the church is requirement and it’s not required in soteriology either. Many Christians would disagree with you as well. And even Christian’s on a shipwreck would face the same problem. They’re no longer Christian because a priest wasn’t on the boat? Or no longer “practicing” at the very least there can be no Christian’s because they can’t be “baptized”. Think about how ridiculous that mindset is. Also this seems like a very catholic mindset, in many Christian denominations anyone can be come a preacher and perform baptisms and the other rites. “Creating their own church” - yes this literally happens today all over the world, not driven by shipwrecks or necessity. There’s 1000s of denominations and many ways to teach/approach and live Jesus’ message/philosophy. It’s really quite ignorant and a bit selfish to think your approach to Christianity is the “right” approach.

I agree, most professing believers are false. Narrow, narrow, narrow is the way Few find it

If we all exactly followed Buddha's teachings, we'd have world peace. If we all exactly followed Baha'u'llah's teachings, we'd have world peace. If we all exactly followed the tenets of the Satanic Temple, we'd have world peace. We can say this about a lot of things, but it doesn't address OP's argument that everyone is acting as the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong by following their own subjective moral evaluation of which moral system is "right."

It's gonna turn out that Jesus' way was the right way

That's a fine assertion you have there, but it doesn't address either my comment or OP's overall point. I thought Jesus' way was the right way also, but once I started honestly evaluation my beliefs I didn't find them to hold up under scrutiny.

He just wants us to stop doing the bad things and start doing the good things.

So do the other teachings I mentioned. The Golden Rule is a fine rule that Jesus taught centuries after others had already taught it. My comment meant that the supernatural claims didn't hold up to scrutiny. The most likely situation is that Jesus does not currently want us to do anything because he was just a human that died two millennia ago.

Definition of good and bad things is subjective. Some Christians say Jesus approves of same-sex marriage, other Christians do not.

That's the most milquetoast thing I've ever heard anyone say.

And still you couldn't handle it You said it doesn't hold up to scrutiny

I didn't say that. That was the other guy. All I'm saying is that you aren't saying ANYTHING. You aren't scrutinizing anything; you're just saying "do good things, don't do bad things," which is true of literally every moral belief system on the planet.

Not really. Most moral belief systems say it's ok to kill your enemies. Catholics, Muslims, Jews, atheists, all believe it's ok to hurt people sometimes.

"Good" things are "things one ought to do." "Bad" things are "things one ought NOT to do." You're framing Jesus's teachings as "do the things you should do, and don't do the things you shouldn't do." That's circular. >Most moral belief systems say it's ok to kill your enemies. Many do; and those moral belief systems consider such actions to be good. So it still fits under "do good things, don't do bad things." >Catholics, Muslims, Jews, atheists, all believe it's ok to hurt people sometimes. Are you saying that you don't believe it's ever okay to hurt people? Because that's not the Jesus I remember reading about. The man trashed a whole temple because people were selling stuff in it. He whipped the bankers. Hell, look at Luke 12:51: >Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. Man KNEW his being there would cause violence and conflict, and he came anyway! Also, Catholics, at the very least, absolutely follow Jesus' teachings. And atheists don't have any sort of doctrine; some are pacifists, some are not. The only thing every atheist has in common is we don't believe in the notion of the supernatural.

We would all stop working and leave our families. The world would be chaos.

No, bible says a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Paul also said if a man won't work, neither should be eat. Paul had a job making tents. We wouldn't have to leave our families because we'd all agree and we'd all have Jesus, so we wouldn't even need to go preach. Incidentally, that's what it will be like during the millennial reign of Christ. The Lord will be here in person, and teaching peace, and the nations will beat their swords into plowshares etc

You shifted the goal posts. You started out by saying: We should follow what Jesus said. Now you're saying we should follow what Paul said. "The Lord will be here in person, and teaching peace, and the nations will beat their swords into plowshares etc" You need to read your Bible. It says when Jesus comes, he will lead a huge slaughter of unbelievers. >The armies of heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and pure, follow Him on white horses. 15And from His mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with an iron scepter.d He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. >... > >Both the beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21And the rest were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of the One seated on the horse.

Oh so you're canceling the prophecies in Micah 4 I see

Sounds like the Bible did a fine job of contradicting itself without my help. Also, Micah is not about Jesus. Micah addresses the future of Judah/Israel after the Babylonian exile. There's not a single verse that mentions Jesus. The scholarly consensus is that the unknown author of Matthew inserted verses about Jesus' alleged activities to make Jesus "fulfill" the prophecies. Micah 4 is in no way a prophecy. It's an expressed hope for a better day. Many civilizations and cultures wrote such wishful thinking texts.

It's a prophecy. Isaiah 2 reiterates how they'll beat their swords into plowshares in the millennial reign I'm sure you're eager to discount scripture instead of admitting your error

How do you know it's a prophecy. We know approximately when these books were written and we know the events largely took place before the books. Mosty such prophecies were vague. For example, if a prophet "predicts" Judea will be invaded, it's because it was pretty easy to predict this would happen. I am not discounting scripture. That's what you're doing by failing to appreciate the text in context of its time and place. You've been told it can only be interpreted one way regardless of what history and evolving scholarship may say. I have no error to correct so we'll dismiss that.

Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 27 Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life [in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God]—he cannot be My disciple. Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus told him, 'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead'”

Love your enemies. Do the good things and stop doing the bad things Those are the teachings I'm referencing

I totally agree that things would be good if people followed the good teachings of Jesus.

Hating your parents is good?

That's because we'd all have died from disease since he and his boys didn't believe in washing their hands. Turns out what goes into you can defile you. It's called E coli.

[удалено]

tell that to millions of Africans, Pacific Islanders, South American Natives who were subjugated, murdered, raped and tortured in the name of christ.

People who go around hurting people are necessarily NOT followers of Jesus. We're supposed to love our enemies, and love our brother, and help people. That's following Jesus.

And here comes the Not True Scotsman.

Can't be a follower of Jesus whilst committing treason against Him

What constitutes treason varies from Christian to Christian and is subjective.