Sure, though a lot of that is just other people's much older thoughts polished up and fitted together.

I mean the fact is.... all I was arguing was that secular objective morality isn't really possible. And my point stands.

I mean I guess I could also send you a giant series of texts too long for you to read and claim I won an argument. It wouldn't prove anything, though, and neither have you.

all I was arguing was that secular objective morality isn't really possible. — Ram

See my first post in this thread. Now to prove it. What do you mean by Objective Morality?

What is there for us to argue about? I claimed objective secular morality is impossible. You agreed. Unless you want to change that position, we both agree.

I claimed objective secular morality is impossible. You agreed. — Ram

Yes, I said it was impossible based on an Absolute definition. As soon as you define what you mean by Objective Morality you will see why you are able to claim that it doesn't exist: because you are using a loaded term, it is purely an exercise in idealism. What you mean by Objective Morality is very close to the same kind of term as what you mean by God. Define the term and all will be made clear.

Without a basis in natural law, it may be subjective or arbitrary- but as arbitrary or subjective as what you proposed. — Ram

Suffering is "subjective or arbitrary"?

That living things (species) with complex nervous systems involuntarily react to-recoil from and adaptively avoid suffering is "subjective or arbitrary"?

And that codifying a natural regularity (e.g homeostatic fail-states/stressor-events) in logic, like codifying other natural regularities (e.g. thermodynamics, inertia) in mathematics, is "subjective and arbitrary"?

How so?

Well I guess if you look at it from a very immoral perspective. If you want to be a moral person than morality has to be an end in itself. — Ram

Why? What's the point in being moral?

If I found out that I had a moral obligation to kill blasphemers then I would choose to be immoral and not kill blasphemers. What about you? Were Leviticus 24:16 to be an objective moral fact, would you comply?

I mean the fact is.... all I was arguing was that secular objective morality isn't really possible.

You didn't argue that. You just asserted it. Why must there be some God (or gods) for there to be objective moral facts? Is something like Kant's categorical imperative impossible without a supernatural intelligence commanding us to follow it?

And also, how does the existence of a God (or gods) entail that there's a "natural law"? Why do the commands of some supernatural intelligence entail objective moral facts? There are plenty of religions that have a concept of evil gods, so it can't be simply that the commands of a deity are necessarily moral obligations.

I believe in an underlying natural law. — Ram

Why?

What do you mean by "I believe in"? An 'article of faith'?

In the sense that you "believe in", how does "an underlying natural law" differ from fundamental physical laws?

Dang. He didn't last long. So much for Objective Morality Apologetic Technique 101.

so in other words you admit that secular objective morality is impossible but you say objective morality isn't even possible anyways and so we should just give up on morals being anything other than objective? — Ram

It appears that the entire edifice of rational morality in the sense that there are good reasons to be moral rests on the assumption that such reasons exist.

Do they?

To discover whether morality is a rational enterprise or not I suggest we put the matter in the context of animals, lesser beings and what I will here refer to as higher beings, beings that are of superior intellect than us and animals naturally.

Animals don't have a moral system - in their world anything goes, nothing is either mandatory or prohibited.

On the other hand, we have a theory/system of morality albeit imperfect in the sense it breaks down when we have what I will refer to as special cases e.g. the trolley problem or the axe murderer at the door. As I mentioned in my previous post, morality is deeply connected to knowledge - the more we know, the better we become, ethically. Isn't that why we, humans, have a moral system and animals don't.

Knowledge is critical to the development of a moral theory that can hold its own against attacks with what I've referred to as special cases. If that's the case then it must be that higher beings have access to a moral theory, based on their greater knowledge, that's perfect in that they've figured out why on earth should people be good and not bad.

Doesn't this imply suggest that to get to the bottom of what morality is all about, we need a higher intellect than what we possess right now? In other words, morality is actually well-grounded, it's just that we haven't figured it out. As a sneak preview of this possibility I'd like to ask you a simple question: Doesn't it make sense to be good rather than bad? If you say "yes" then you've caught a glimpse of the "hidden logic" of morality and if you say "no" then consider what I've said up till this point.

Uh, yeah. I'm not on a forum all day. And which religion exactly am I promoting on this thread?

You don't need that many paragraphs to say objective secular morality doesn't exist.

I don't believe in Leviticus. I'm simply arguing that secular objective morality isn't possible. You say I asserted rather than argued. Okay, we can suppose I just asserted then. It doesn't make a difference. Either way I'm not seeing any disproof of my claim.

"Yes, I said it was impossible based on an Absolute definition."

Okay, wonderful. We agree. We don't need walls of text rather than just stating the truth bluntly.

What do I mean by believe in? I don't know, I'm not a dictionary. I'm not webster.

I believe there is a natural law. Do you believe there isn't one? Whether we do or we don't- neither of us can prove our position with a test tube or whatever other scientific instruments. It's weird that people on a philosophy forum are so into scientism. If you go all the way with that, you shouldn't even be interested in philosophy. Probably 90% of philosophy isn't based on empirical science. If we really followed that logic, we would throw philosophy out entirely. Philosophy is based on abstract arguments, not on empiricism.

As for definition of "believe", I don't know, I don't care. Either natural law objectively exists or it objectively doesn't- independently of what anyone believes.

You don't need that many paragraphs to say objective secular morality doesn't exist — Ram

Well, I wasn't saying objective morality doesn't exist. I was offering a theory that it could and that it's just that we haven't understood it. I think it can be likened to someone who's opened up a portal into the future. As he gazes through it, he sees wondrous things- futuristic stuff like teleportation, laser guns, simulated realities, etc - but for the life of him he can't comprehend what he sees. Morality, if you give it some consideration, is futuristic; after all, current technology can't support it - all moral theories have loopholes that have more to do with existing technology than the theories themselves in my humble opinion. A Peter Wessel Zapffe thought that the human brain had over-evolved.

Existence of God (as in God with capital G) would entail natural law.

You cite "gods" and there being alleged evil "gods".

God with capital G is different than these alleged "gods".

Your argument is not really this big "checkmate" argument. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, even Yoruba religion all recognize one God who would be roughly analogous to the Abrahamic God. Islam uses the term "Allah," Hinduism uses "Brahman" or something like that. Taoism refers to the Tao. Is that news to you?

I don't believe in Leviticus. — Ram

I didn't say that you did. I asked you if you would obey if it were it true.

You say I asserted rather than argued. Okay, we can suppose I just asserted then. It doesn't make a difference. Either way I'm not seeing any disproof of my claim.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim. It's your job to show it to be true, not my job to show it to be false.

But I did allude to an example of an objective, secular morality: Kant's categorical imperative.

Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity and desires of the person making the moral deliberation.

A moral maxim must imply absolute necessity, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, sometimes called the principle of universalizability: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Existence of God (as in God with capital G) would entail natural law.

You cite "gods" and there being alleged evil "gods".

God with capital G is different than these alleged "gods".

Your argument is not really this big "checkmate" argument. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, even Yoruba religion all recognize one God who would be roughly analogous to the Abrahamic God. Islam uses the term "Allah," Hinduism uses "Brahman" or something like that. Taoism refers to the Tao. Is that news to you? — Ram

What is the difference between a "capital G" God and other kinds of deities? How does the existence of such a thing entail "natural law"?

"I didn't say that you did. I asked you if you would obey if it were it true.

You say I asserted rather than argued. Okay, we can suppose I just asserted then. It doesn't make a difference. Either way I'm not seeing any disproof of my claim.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim. It's your job to show it to be true, not my job to show it to be false.

But I did allude to an example of an objective, secular morality: Kant's categorical imperative."

look, the claim of this thread is there is no secular objective morality. thus far, no one has disproved that claim because to do so is impossible. Kantianism is not objective. No more so than utilitarianism, fascism, whatever arbitrary ideology

look, the claim of this thread is there is no secular objective morality. thus far, no one has disproved that claim because to do so is impossible. — Ram

You need to prove your claim. We don't need to disprove it.

Kantianism is not objective.

What, exactly, does "objective" mean to you? Kantian morality is an objective morality as most people understand the meaning of "objective morality".

"now if God.... THE God told me to follow OT laws...... you are arguing whether it would be right to follow even though supposedly God says to do something immoral...... well.... the Euthyphro Dilemma is another topic. I'm not interested in debating it. I haven't really looked into the Euthyphro Dilemma and I'm not looking to debate it

How can you prove I need to prove my claim? Do you have any science experiments to prove that I need to prove my claim?

No, Kantianism is not objective. It's what some person named Kant came up with.

I'm referring to a conception of God that pretty much every major religion is familiar with. If you don't know what I'm talking about, so be it.

now if God.... THE God told me to follow OT laws...... you are arguing whether it would be right to follow even though supposedly God says to do something immoral. — Ram

No, I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers isn't immoral. If you had an objective moral obligation to kill blasphemers, as established by God's natural law, would you kill blasphemers?

In this situation it would be immoral to not kill blashphemers.

No, Kantianism is not objective. It's what some person named Kant came up with.

Kant (and those who support his view) would say that Kant discovered the categorical imperative. He didn't make it. In the same way that we discover rather than create mathematical truths.

I'm referring to a conception of God that pretty much every major religion is familiar with. If you don't know what I'm talking about, so be it.

An all-powerful, all-knowing, creator deity? How does that entail a "natural law" (i.e. objective moral facts)?

How can you prove I need to prove my claim? Do you have any science experiments to prove that I need to prove my claim? — Ram

You need to study up on philosophy before you start trying to engage us in philosophy.

"No, I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers isn't immoral. If you had an objective moral obligation to kill blasphemers, as established by God's natural law, would you kill blasphemers?

In this situation it would be immoral to not kill blashphemers."

The whole basis of what you're saying here is the Euthyphro Dilemma.

"Kant (and those who support his view) would say that Kant discovered the categorical imperative."

well they'd be wrong. if I say Alaska is in Africa, Alaska is still not in Africa.

"An all-powerful, all-knowing, creator deity? How does that entail a "natural law" (i.e. objective moral facts)?"

Don't worry about it. If you don't understand the conception of God that I'm referring to and that the majority of the world's population is familiar with then don't worry about it. Or is it that you do understand that conception and you are rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma? I already said I'm not looking to debate Euthyphro Dilemma.

"You need to study up on philosophy before you start trying to engage us in philosophy."

Well if you've studied up on philosophy then you know this is ad hominem.

The whole basis of what you're saying here is the Euthyphro Dilemma. — Ram

No it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma is "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?". I'm not asking that. I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers is good.

well they'd be wrong. if I say Alaska is in Africa, Alaska is still not in Africa.

So you're saying that an objective morality is inconsistent with secularism because a proposed secular objective morality is false? That's a non sequitur. It may be a fact that Kantianism is false, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a secular objective morality.

Or is it that you do understand that conception and you are rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma? I already said I'm not looking to debate Euthyphro Dilemma. — Ram

No, I'm still not talking about the Euthyphro Dilemma. I'm asking you how it is that the existence of God entails objective moral facts.

"The whole basis of what you're saying here is the Euthyphro Dilemma.
— Ram

No it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma is "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?". I'm not asking that. I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers is good.

well they'd be wrong. if I say Alaska is in Africa, Alaska is still not in Africa.

So you're saying that an objective morality is inconsistent with secularism because a proposed secular objective morality is false? That's a non sequitur. It may be a fact that Kantianism is false, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a secular objective morality.

Or is it that you do understand that conception and you are rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma? I already said I'm not looking to debate Euthyphro Dilemma.
— Ram

No, I'm still not talking about the Euthyphro Dilemma. I'm asking you how it is that the existence of God entails objective moral facts."

Most of your post is just rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma.