A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

This is the problem, not only will you not be able to demonstrate this objective standard - how do you then demonstrate that this standard is the morally correct one? Do we have a higher standard to by which we can judge those moral principles? And on and on. So instead of giving in to infinite regression you will have to claim that moral questions must stop somewhere - at this particular objective standard. But why not just stop at God's moral nature? And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.

The actual consequences if there is no moral realityNo one decides
A misunderstanding of subjectivity

[Charles]

God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so.

Just a few questions about this statement, seer.

- How do we know that God is self defined?
- Which self defined God are we talking about here?
- Do we know that he even exists?
- If we do not know that he exists, then how can we know that he is good or self defined?
- And even if he exists and declares that he is good, then how can we know?
- Why would you accept a circular statement about goodness in this context when circularity is a term used to describe a line of reasoning in which the conclusion is given beforehand?
- Is it right to claim knowledge about something that takes belief?

[seer]

Charles, I'm not calling you a liar I'm saying you are deeply mistake, and wrong in your reasoning. Look lets cut to the chase - make a case here for a universal moral truth, any universal moral truth. The maxim you just referenced is not a universal truth it is one man's opinion on how we should view or practice ethics. Please make a deductive (non-circular) argument for an objective moral truth. Here, now. Thank you.

Charles you are free to reject my position, but logically a universal (omnipresent) Creator could embody universal moral truths. Especially in light of the fact that ethics are mind dependent. There is nothing implausible about that concept - now present yours...

[seer]

A misunderstanding of subjectivity

Tell me Charles, why did Kant need to appeal to a just God at the end of the road? And if all of humanity turned on itself tomorrow and destroyed itself would that be a universal moral wrong? Is our survival a universal moral good? And Charles you don't even buy into Kantian Ethics, you completely broke with his principle on lying, you jumped into the utilitarianism/consequentialism camp on that one. So you don't actually buy into his reasoning...

So what do we glean from this Charles - does this lead to the universal truth that all killing (of humans in this case) is wrong? Do you believe that?

[Charles]

Tell me Charles, why did Kant need to appeal to a just God at the end of the road?

Already commented on that. Look at "Kant's points" in here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450176

And Charles you don't even buy into Kantian Ethics, you completely broke with his principle on lying, you jumped into the utilitarianism/consequentialism camp on that one. So you don't actually buy into his reasoning...

I did use the word consequence. Like Kant would say that the consequence of saying you can always lie is that it leads to a contradiction. You do not become a utlilitarianist for saying so. And by the way, i never claimed to follow Kant strictly.

So what do we glean from this Charles - does this lead to the universal truth that all killing (of humans in this case) is wrong? Do you believe that?

[Charles]

Charles, I'm not calling you a liar I'm saying you are deeply mistake, and wrong in your reasoning. Look lets cut to the chase - make a case here for a universal moral truth, any universal moral truth. The maxim you just referenced is not a universal truth it is one man's opinion on how we should view or practice ethics. Please make a deductive (non-circular) argument for an objective moral truth. Here, now. Thank you.

I have already done so on told why it is the right way to do it and why it is possible.

But you reject that it is even possible. I go through lots of reasoning in order to explain why your "one man's opinion" does not hold. And then you ignore all of it and ask me to do something i have already done. So you will have to prove my line of reasoning wrong. You cannot just igore it. You should be able to realise the absurdity of asking me to do it. If what I presented was just "one man's opinion" then so would the next thing. But that line of reasoning is based on a misunderstanding which i made very clear. Read it and comment on it, instead of just ignoring it. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

By the way, you said a was lying. Don't try to run from it.

Charles you are free to reject my position, but logically a universal (omnipresent) Creator could embody universal moral truths. Especially in light of the fact that ethics are mind dependent. There is nothing implausible about that concept - now present yours...

The "fact" that ethics are mind dependent is the one i just showed wrong. You seem to not even read it, or you just ignore it? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

Basically if what you point to is God's opinion as a foundation for moral truths, then no, that would not do. Sorry. But there is always hope.

[seer]

Sheesh Charles that is the point - you don't even find Kant's reasoning compelling enough to follow through on it! For goodness sake man, you don't even find universal moral truths here!

[seer]

I have already done so on told why it is the right way to do it and why it is possible.

But you reject that it is even possible. I go through lots of reasoning in order to explain why your "one man's opinion" does not hold. And then you ignore all of it and ask me to do something i have already done. So you will have to prove my line of reasoning wrong. You cannot just igore it. You should be able to realise the absurdity of asking me to do it. If what I presented was just "one man's opinion" then so would the next thing. But that line of reasoning is based on a misunderstanding which i made very clear. Read it and comment on it, instead of just ignoring it. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

By the way, you said a was lying. Don't try to run from it.

If I actually accuse you of lying I apologize - I did not have that intent. But no where in your post did you actually attempt to make a real argument for a real universal moral truth. And no where did you tell us how ethical concepts could exist apart from a mind. I'm sorry Charles, I have limited time so let's focus.

The "fact" that ethics are mind dependent is the one i just showed wrong. You seem to not even read it, or you just ignore it? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

Basically if what you point to is God's opinion as a foundation for moral truths, then no, that would not do. Sorry. But there is always hope.

Of course ethics are mind dependent, you use an example from Kant that you don't in the end even agree with - your subjective mind disagreed with his subjective mind.

[Charles]

Sheesh Charles that is the point - you don't even find Kant's reasoning compelling enough to follow through on it! For goodness sake man, you don't even find universal moral truths here!

As much as we can disagree I will have to give you that this point is rather funny :-)

On a more serious note:

- I have never claimed to follow Kant all the way
- I have just showed how it is not subjective opinion that is relevant to moral truth

You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

And like I said, since you hold that all opinions on this are subjective, Gods subjective opinion might differ from yours. Sheesh seer :-)

[seer]

As much as we can disagree I will have to give you that this point is rather funny :-)

On a more serious note:

- I have never claimed to follow Kant all the way
- I have just showed how it is not subjective opinion that is relevant to moral truth

You can read it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896

And like I said, since you hold that all opinions on this are subjective, Gods subjective opinion might differ from yours. Sheesh seer :-)

Yes Charles, I fully agree that God's subjective opinion can differ from my subjective opinion. Just as your subjective opinion differs from Kant's.

[JimL]

Yes Charles, I fully agree that God's subjective opinion can differ from my subjective opinion. Just as your subjective opinion differs from Kant's.

Do you think god has a subjective opinion?

[seer]

Do you think god has a subjective opinion?

Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.

Subjective:

a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind:
b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristic or states

In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.

[37818]

Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.


In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.

Well if we apply subjectivism to God, then God's subjectivism is the absolute objective truth.

[seer]

Well if we apply subjectivism to God, then God's subjectivism is the absolute objective truth.

Well God's moral law would be objective to mankind.

[JimL]

Yes, I think His ethics are subjective to Him, they are His and He is the subject.

You said "gods subjective opinion." So, are morals gods subjective opinions, or are they objective facts?

In other words God moral sense or moral law does not exist independently of Him.

So, god itself has no choice in the matter concerning what is good or what is evil? That would mean that morals are independent of god, not dependent.