Allow me to chime in here. — KantRemember

You are very welcome to this thread.

I was recently convinced of objective morality (after being a strong believer in anti-realism) when I was made aware of my conflation between moral subjectivity and conditionally objectivity. — KantRemember

What do you mean by conditional objectivity?

You have to think of morality as a framework by which life abides by. — KantRemember

I don't think that it is morality but "common" interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. I used "common" to stress that we are social animals and we could not possibly survive without collaboration. Humans managed to survive and evolve a long time ago when we had no idea about morality. Unfortunately, we are still tribal creatures so we have conflicts in interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions when it comes to my tribe versus your tribe, my group versus your group, my country versus your country, etc. These conflicts are still the main source of tension between human beings. The conflicts unfortunately even exist within a human group. We still have poor and rich people in many countries while we are familiar with the concept of morality. So the question is why we as rational agents cannot manage to reach a state of harmony where all individuals' needs are fulfilled, all individuals are treated equally, all individuals are governed by universal laws in a united state, etc. I think the answer to this question is that we haven't yet evolved well enough. What do you think?

We, as humans, depend on the well-being of ourselves and each other, that is true of life just as 1+1 = 2 is true of math. — KantRemember

I think you are referring to Utopia. There are still power abuses even in well-developed countries. There is a boss who has all rights to the intellectual properties produced by workers. He is rich and workers just receive minimal wages to survive. He has the right to fire workers. Unfortunately, humanity can function under such a condition. It was working under such a condition and it will.

It is objectively true that preventing suffering is better for the well-being of the human species than allowing it, and by that standard, suffering is bad. — KantRemember

Well, that is true if we live in Utopia. Is that right to torture a terrorist who put a bomb in a location to get information about where the bomb is? You can save many lives just by torturing him. What do you think?

Maxims are good in itself. — Corvus

I don't think that a maxim is good or bad in Kant's terminology. For example, increasing my wealth is a maxim. Kant however provides a test on a maxim, killing a human for example, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. So, I believe that a maxim in Kant's terminology is not good or bad per se without passing the test. It is through the test that Kant concludes that killing is wrong for example. That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test.

Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. — Corvus

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling?

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements. — Corvus

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality.

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. — Corvus

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution.

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs. — Corvus

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription?

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all. — Corvus

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this.

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation. — Corvus

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?...

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself. — Corvus

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

Exodus 3:13-14: "13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"

The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason. — Corvus

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

They don't warrant objectivity. — Corvus

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide.

Morality implies objectivity. — Corvus

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good. — Corvus

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning would be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world. — Corvus

Yet, you need to provide an argument for why killing a human is objectively wrong in all circumstances. Needless to say, the God of the Old Testament commanded to kill all people including innocents, and just keep virgin girls for yourself elsewhere (Numbers 31:17-18). So I am wondering how you could explain such a conflict.

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. — Corvus

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible.

As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense.

If matter is not what the mind directly experiences then it is something else, let's call it X. X has to exist objectively though otherwise the experiencing is not possible. X however has properties that cause our experiences to have features, so-called Qualia.

"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists? — Corvus

If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.

But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? — Corvus

Jesus is believed to be God and not a follower of God according to Christians.

Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions? — Corvus

Perhaps. I am not aware of any other verse that says that God abandoned His believers though. Some people believe that the verse was not the actual thing that Jesus said when He was on the Cross.

I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience. — Corvus

I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below.

When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason. — Corvus

I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion.

I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions. — Corvus

We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on.

Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense. — Corvus

These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested.

Sure, belief and faith on the Bible is not the main issue in logical and rational investigation to any topic of God. It would be more suitable for religious discussions. Therefore we could start by asking even what you mean by "God".

What is God? — Corvus

God, at least within Abrahamic religions, is defined as the creator of everything. Christians believe that God is a trion, three united persons. Muslims and Jews disagree with the concept of the Trinity though.

Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible? — Corvus

In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam.

Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? — Corvus

Not according to what I am aware of.

We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. — Corvus

How do you define practical reasoning?

When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. — Corvus

To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors?

Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality. — Corvus

I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective.

Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again. — Corvus

I don't think so.

Pure reason is not deduction. — Corvus

I didn't say so. I said pure reason includes deduction. That is not my definition though. You can google it yourself.

Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. — Corvus

What is the practical reason to you?

Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature. — Corvus

Objective morality to me is based on pure reason. Any rational agents, including humans, would agree on objective morality if there is any. I am arguing that morality is not objective but subjective though.

I am simply saying that having faith based on the Bible is not reasonable because the verses contradict each other. People believe in all sorts of religions. Any religion introduces a set of concepts, like God and his attributes. There are conflicts between different religions and this is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is about the conflicts between different verses of the Bible that Christians believe to be true.

Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe. — Corvus

What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it.

What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country. — Corvus

My point was that the conflict between people about who is right or wrong indicates that morality is not objective but subjective.

Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason? — Corvus

The pure reason includes deduction. Pure reason is a broad concept referring to any form of logical thinking in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Deduction is however a type of reasoning in which you start with true premises and reach a conclusion. Deduction as well as pure reason has its use when it comes to morality. For example, if we accept that killing a human is wrong as a true premise then it follows that killing me is wrong since I am a human.

Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements. — Corvus

How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective.

OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith. — Corvus

I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion.

It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself. — Corvus

No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview.

The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true. — Corvus

The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right.

What is a prior principles? — Corvus

A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience.

They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason? — Corvus

We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function.

Sure, but the suggestion was, wouldn't it be logical to come to some form of demonstration or proof on the existence of God, before going into pointing out the conflicts in the Bible?

When no one knows if God exists, or even what God is, then how could we discuss on the conflicts in the Bible which are supposed to be what God had said and did? It was just a suggestion in the form of question. — Corvus

Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not.

The question was, shouldn't you try to prove the existence of God before discussing about the property of God? Have you proved the existence of God? — Corvus

The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right.

That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. — Corvus

No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world.

So who is really right? — Corvus

Any person thinks that he is right.

What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason? — Corvus

By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles.

Could you please explain the difference between pure reason and practical reason in Kantian philosophy? — Corvus

To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like.

That was my question as well! I also would like to know about its performance and how it compares with other AI.

It is clear you haven't answered the question. — Corvus

What is the question that I didn't answer?

The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason.

I wasn't arguing anything at all. I was just asking you a question. — Corvus

Ok, I hope things are clear now.

You need to be able to read between the lines on his writings to be able to apply them into your own circumstances wisely. — Corvus

Circumstances define a situation. According to Kant, we need to universalize a maxim to determine whether it is right or wrong. By universalizing, he is very clear that the maxim must be accepted by all rational agents.

I think I repeated on them numerous times, even with the examples. You need to go back and reread them if you missed the points. — Corvus

You have never defined objective and subjective when it comes to morality. The examples you provided support morality to be subjective. So, the tension in our discussion arises from the fact that we don't use the same definition for objective and subjective. To me, as I defined it, morality is objective if it is based on pure reason. It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like. Do you agree with these definitions? If not what are your definitions?

Who are the "people"? — Corvus

Believer of God.

If you are an agnostic, shouldn't you try to prove on the existence of God? — Corvus

I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God.

Talking about the properties of God gave a strong indication that you are not an agnostic. — Corvus

No, I just mentioned what people believe.

Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law. — Corvus

No, they are not. At least according to Kant.

Please read above. — Corvus

How do you define objective and subjective when it comes to morality?

Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"? — Corvus

It depends on what you mean by properties and attributes.

I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things. — Corvus

Yes, philosophers define essence differently.

Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? — Corvus

These are what people believe.

Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means? — Corvus

Of course, not.

The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English. — Corvus

The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances."

If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality. — Corvus

You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective.

Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied. — Corvus

It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on.

Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective. — Corvus

Then give me an argument for morality being objective. I think we have been through this.

Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans. — Corvus

Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective.

Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in. — Corvus

Don't you think that there are societies that have different opinions on whether an action is right or wrong? Doesn't that negate what morality is?

I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in. — Corvus

I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws.

For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings. — Corvus

Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. Our judgment is however based on, opinion, feeling, belief, practical reasoning, or pure reasoning. Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. Otherwise, it is subjective.

Interesting. Thanks for quoting the verse.

Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world. — Corvus

To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object is—attribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.

The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods. — Corvus

The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.

Some people thought he was calling for John the Baptist. Can't remember which gospel says that. One of them. — frank

Ok.

Careful reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus claimed himself to be Son of Man rather than Son of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

How could He be the Son of Man if Mary is accepted to be a virgin?

Of course. — frank

Okay, that is one acceptable scenario. Another acceptable scenario is that Jesus never said those words when He was on the cross. So who knows!?

Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences? — Corvus

Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same.

Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all. — Corvus

I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example.

Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements. — Corvus

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action.

When you deny that you are denying morality itself. — Corvus

I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others.

There is no such thing as subjective morality. — Corvus

Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective.

That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism.

The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes. — frank

So you think that people make up the gospel of John, which is not what Jesus said.