Things matter to God. — Hanover

How do you know that?

Me, too. So we agree on that... If we disagreed, there would be more to say.

Does that make our agreement subjective? Is our agreement relative? Or is this talk of subjective/objective relative/(...absolute?) just fluff? — Banno

The answer to this question is contingent on how these words get defined and thereby understood.

Suppose that among its other attributes “subjective” necessarily entails that that specified is a) partial to only some aspects of all that is real and b) is subjected to aspects of all that is real toward which it is not partial to.

Further suppose that among its other possible attributes “objective” necessarily entails that that specified is a) not partial to some aspects of all that is real and b) not in any way subjected to aspects of all that is real toward which it is not partial to.

These two attributes then being necessary but insufficient definitions of each term.

Then, if there is an objective Good, all subjective beings will necessarily be subjected to it – irrespective of whether they are partial to it or not. Here, one need not have an affinity toward the Good to be subjected to it. More extremely, if all subjective beings were to have a repulsion toward the Good and thereby be in full agreement that the Good is in fact bad, sooner or later the Good would end up biting them in the ass – not because the Good is a ego-endowed selfhood which judges them but, instead, because here the Good is an objective aspect of reality at large to which all subjective being are thereby inevitably subjected to. Like gravity, given that it likewise in fact is objective, one might detest being so constrained and might want to fly off a tall building by flapping one’s hands, but gravity will have its (metaphorical) final say in the matter all the same. Agreement on what is good is here agreement on what in fact is an objective aspect of reality at large.

If there is no objective Good, then goodness is fully subjective: If enough people agree that murdering is good, murdering thereby here becomes good for the people in question. And there is no objective realty by which to measure this goodness of murdering. In parallel, using gravity as example again, if enough people were to agree that gravity is not a universal law and further agree that it is then possible to fly by the flapping of hands – given that there is nothing objective about gravity – then within these cohorts people would then begin flying by the flapping of their hands.

Other definitions of subjectivity and objective might well yield different results. But the question still gets answered based on how the terms specified get to be understood.

How do you know that? — praxis

Because that's what God is to me. Faith.

It's not utilitarianism. — Sam26

It's consequentialism. If happiness is not the consequence you wish to achieve, what is?

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference.

It's consequentialism. If happiness is not the consequence you wish to achieve, what is? — Hanover

Ok, so maximal eudemonia is the goal or else consequence pursued. The pivotal intent, so to speak. Doesn't the exact same apply to all theistic peoples out there?

I ask (in my previous post) because to my way of understanding, this so called "pivotal intent" of maximizing eudemonia (which can be translated as "well-being" just as much as "happiness"; and to which suffering is the opposite) is of itself ubiquitous to absolutely all lifeforms and, hence, all sentient (aka, subjective) beings.

So the question regarding ethics at large is then not "whether or not so doing is of itself good" - it can't help but so be, and is in a way the missing link to all ethical considerations bar none - but, instead, it's the question of "what is the best approach to so doing".

But does God command them because they yield good results or do they only yield good results because God comannded them? Or, perhaps, are they a set of criteria for assessing what a good life is? — Ludwig V

I think the commandments are good in-themselves for Israel to follow and they generally bring about good results. Mosaic law is particular to Israel. Yet God also gives 7 laws to Noah intended for all of humanity way before Moses.

Yet before any of this Cain commits murder. Both Cain and God know that it is wrong. This would seem to imply a universal pre-existent moral order. Here we hear of the land being "defiled" through Cain's deed and how Abel's blood "cries out" to God from the ground. There's a lot to unpack here. And rules go back all the way to Eden.

The Mosaic commandments essentially give Israel their identity.

There's a lot to unpack here. And rules go back all the way to Eden. — BitconnectCarlos

Would you then agree that, from within an Abrahamic perspective, the same “rules” of ethics would minimally go back to Gensis 1’s so-called “sixth day” (which I so far interpret to represent “the sixth cycle of events” given that there were "days" prior to a solid earth's occurrence)?

The sixth day being the day in which the “we” therein addressed – which I interpret as being Elohim (this rather than G-d, this due to G-d's entailed divine simplicity, which thereby could not be a plurality in any sense of the word) – created both man and woman, woman and man, in Elohim’s very own image likeness. This, then, necessarily before Eve was created from Adam’s rib; and so long before the Cain and Abel event ever took place.

I’ll be away for a while, but in case this comes up:

Though I can imagine how what I mentioned in my previous post might sound uncouth to some, so interpreting - as per Genesis I - the creation of humankind on day six (this rather than on day seven) to me is the only way I can find of making sense of the age old question of how Cain got around to having children: Here, Cain did not have children via some form of immaculate conception nor did he have his children with Eve, his mother, but instead coupled with a women created on the sixth day when humankind at large was created. This union thereby giving rise the Jewish peoples.

This being a philosophy forum, thought I’d mention this perspective. This, again, just in case what I previously mentioned might have sounded cross to some. (Hard to tell how others interpret it.)

There's a lot to unpack here. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything gets more complicated when you look at it closely. I wouldn't know how to unpack this.
I suppose the idea that God only realized that moral laws were necessary when people began to behave badly is ridiculous.
The rule in Eden is puzzling. Is there really supposed to be some moral lesson to be drawn from that story - presumably about some knowledge being forbidden? After all, it is hard to believe that knowledge of good and evil is a Bad Thing. It is the foundation of morality. Or is that knowledge the part of the punishment inflicted on us as a result of the transgression by Adam and Eve?

Hu?

Faith is the attitude of consent toward social/institutional realities. Without evidence, these are treated as if they were objective realities, not anthropological realities. Faith sustains these entities, as these social realities can only exist through collective human consent. As faith goes, so goes the reality.

This is true not just of religions, but of nations, currencies, laws, companies, and ethics. There is no objective evidence of any of these, beyond the actual practice itself. Because they consist in the practice, and the faith that engenders and sustains it

Not withstanding some everyday uses, i.e. "I have faith the bus will come in time".

Believing that putting the ball in the net counts as a goal is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play football.

Consenting to our social institutions is not an act of faith.

The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge is indeed puzzling. I think though, that we can zoom out, and say that the eden story presents us with a conception of reality where reality itself is wonderful and for mankind to enjoy and to flourish, yet there are certain rules that one must follow for it to endure.

Song of Solomon uses much edenic imagery; so perhaps through love we re-enter Eden in a way.

The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge is indeed puzzling. I think though, that we can zoom out, and say that the eden story presents us with a conception of reality where reality really is wonderful and it's here for mankind to enjoy and to flourish, yet there are certain rules that one must follow for it to endure. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a very attractive view. I wouldn't deny that sometimes people make their own hell, in one way or another, but I can't accept that everyone who is having a bad time has brought it on themselves. In addition, I would want empirical evidence that following the ten commandments (or any other set of rules) always or even mostly has good results.

Song of solomon, which is love poetry, uses much edenic imagery, so perhaps through love we re-enter Eden in a way. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a possible view, though I would have to treat it as a metaphor. But can we live our whole lives in that way?

ask (in my previous post) because to my way of understanding, this so called "pivotal intent" of maximizing eudemonia (which can be translated as "well-being" just as much as "happiness"; and to which suffering is the opposite) is of itself ubiquitous to absolutely all lifeforms and, hence, all sentient (aka, subjective) eings. — javra

This seems to conflate happiness and eudemonia with pleasure. As with happiness, Mill spent considerable time distinguishing simple pleasure from the fulfillment of happiness and Aristotle required reason and virtue for the fulfillment of eudemonia. That is (alluding to Mill), there's a significant difference between a satisfied pig and satisfied person.

My response here is just a push back on the comment regarding the ubiquity of happiness seeking by all life forms.

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference. — praxis

A faith based belief in the existence of a moral force sounds theistic, suggesting that without this moral force, it wouldn't matter if we murdered. Meaning is implanted in this belief isn't it?

Believing that putting the ball in the net counts as a goal is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play football.

Consenting to our social institutions is not an act of faith. — Banno

Is this an analogy suggesting that "Believing that murder counts as evil is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play the rules of society"?

Are you arguing that moral compliance is just a consent to a social institution and not an act of faith?

If I've not overstated your claim here, my response is to point out the distinction: Murder is wrong no matter what we decide. We can change the rules of football goals as we wish.

Murder is unlawful killing. Being against the law is being against a social institution.

So why is murder wrong - becasue is breaches a social institution, or becasue it is a subclass of killing, and all killing wrong?

it's not faith that makes netting a ball a goal, nor faith that makes an unlawful killing a murder.

The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge is indeed puzzling. I — BitconnectCarlos

I take this as a limitation on a mortal's ability to survive knowledge of absolute truth. It is to see the face of God, so to speak. Consistent with Exodus 33:20, God tells Moses, "But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Consistent with the Midrash that God reveals himself to Moses through a kiss and then he dies. My interpretation of the art.

As in, epiphanies we all might experience throughout our lives might change who we were into what we are.

It was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.". There wasn't any evil at first. When Eve ate from the tree (after being forbidden to), she gained the knowledge of good and evil (and became like God in this regard just as the snake had advised.) It was a set-up.

why is murder wrong - becasue is breaches a social institution, or becasue it is a subclass of killing, and all killing wrong? — Banno

All killing isn't wrong. Self defense, for example. The moral decree opposed to killing is limited to certain sorts of killing. The Commandment, for what it's worth, is not to murder, not not to kill. That is, the moral, not the law, was not to murder.

Regardless, change from what I said to "thou shall not stomp babies for fun." Is this just our rule, like a ball in the net counts as a goal, or is it immutable?

was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.". There wasn't any evil at first. When Eve ate from the tree (after being forbidden to), she gained the knowledge of good and evil (and became like God in this regard just as the snake had advised.) It was a set-up. — frank

Yeah, the story isn't perfect, like any art. I create my own meaning to some extent.

Under your interpretation, if there was no evil when Adam and Eve ate, they didn't sin. If they didn't sin, we don't need Jesus to save humanity from the fall of man. You just fucked up a major religion.

No, it's like a Pandora story where the woman opens the box and evil enters the world, but in this story she eats some fruit she wasn't supposed to, becomes the first sinner, now she has the knowledge of good and evil, which is what the tree is called.

"thou shall not stomp babies for fun." — Hanover

Do you need all your morality in terms of commandments?

The point being made is that, contrary to 's suggestion, social institutions do not rely on faith. They do depend on constitutive rules, either explicitly or implicitly. Murder, being unlawful killing, is a social institution.

Some social institutions have ethical import - one can't steal unless there is the social institution of property, for instance.

The wickedness of stomping of babies for fun is not of this sort.

The wickedness of stomping of babies for fun is not of this sort. — Banno

So this rule is not from the hand of man. Where did it come from? Are there more of these rules not yet known?

So this rule is not from the hand of man. — Hanover

There's a certain obsession with commandments on your part.

Did you decide that baby stomping is a bad thing all by yourself, or did you need help?

Was it just your conscience? Or the hand of man, or of God, that convinced you?

So this rule is not from the hand of man. — Hanover

Notice that this doesn't follow? Another use of false dilemma, a pattern in your posts here. It's not that either something is the result of a constitutive rule or it is "not from the hand of man".

Are there more of these rules not yet known? — Hanover

Another problem. The presumption seems to be that ethics is about rules. While arguably, morality might be about rules, ethics not so much. In the last page or so it was pointed out that ethics might not be algorithmic, that there might be no rules that suit all situations. Think of it this way: treating a rule as absolute is giving succour to the devil, who will delight in inventing traps in which following the rule leads to cruelty.