How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[boatsnguitars]

From reading up on it and engaging with everything offered in favor of this in this thread, I think this claim is objectively wrong.

Let's try again.

1. You are claiming that the Intentional Act of Creation (IAoC) is the magic sauce that makes morals real. You don't see how the Big Bang can create OMVs because it wasn't intentional. Is this a fair summary?

2. If Morals are Real, then they transcend what is held in the mind or understanding of a Subject. Agree?

3. If Morals are real, they - it is argued - made of "something other than" Matter. They seem to be bound by certain laws that transcend any Subjects thoughts. Correct?

4. If a Toy Maker makes a robot with Free Will and makes it moral to murder, you have argued this is moral; because the Toy Maker has used the IAoC to create the Toy, and has deemed it moral to murder. Correct?

5. Here is where I lose you: I don't know if you mean an IAoC is like making a baby (which is what parents do, thus intentionally creating a person - therefore, they'd be able to determine the morality of that child - which is literally the definition of Subjective.) Or, if you mean that the IAoC must come from unique, new, novel "stuff" that - surprise, surprise - only God can do. I assume the latter (or some version of it). Can you confirm?

6. If you mean that Morals must be made up of novel "stuff", then you can't simply declare God created this stuff - because where did he get it from? Magic? It's a big enough problem to explain how God created Matter ex nihilo, and Morals would be a similar problem. (You could argue that morals are an emergent property of Matter.... but you see that problem for you.) Can you confirm that Morals are something other than God "stuff" (the stuff God is made of) or "other stuff" (something that may or may not be unique to God)?

7. If you say, "I don't know how God did it, but I don't need to. All i need to do is argue that "if" it's possible, it explains it." Sure, just like "If the aliens made the pyramids, it explains it." It's not an explanation.

8. However, if you say "Morals are made from God stuff", then you'd have to admit God didn't create them ex nihilio, he simply "birthed" them (used existing "stuff" to make them). If you argue that this is adequate, then making babies is also adequate.

9. If you argue that God created Morals ex nihilo, then you have to explain how they aren't subjective in the sense that God creating them is really the same as God deciding what is and isn't moral.

10. In all, you haven't extracted yourself from Euthyphro's horns.

11. After all, if you say, "God could make it so that some Beings fight and kill for their survival (animals) but that others shouldn't." Then it is clear that Morals only apply to some and not other Beings. That is, they aren't objective (for example, gravity works on all creatures because it is an objective fact. The Earth is objectively round and every creature or being must adhere to this fact - they can't fly through it, or pretend it isn't round).

12. If you say "Morals are Objective" then you have to explain how the IAoC makes them objective in the sense that they transcend God, or the Maker. You've attempted to explain this in a lengthy causal chain that really just is a verbose reiteration of your claim that "God can make morals objective." You haven't explained how morals become Real even if there is a Maker of Moral values. What is the Maker making? Moral "stuff"? Moral "concepts"? Is the Moral Maker not making morals at all, but only enforcing them?

13. So, in short, you still have a Euthyprho Dilemma on your hands, you've just added detail in one part of the explanation chain. 2. You haven't defined what morals are, or how they are transferred, enforced, etc. If they are Real, then they are made of some "stuff", if they aren't real, they are subjective, or some other category.

[Bust Nak]

I don’t see how a comparison of two things (even if what you are saying is true) would show that both things don’t have general agreement.

Miscommunication again. I said they do have general agreement. The point was, general agreement does not imply objectivity.

I’m open to hearing your case for that as well as your case for there being more agreement in food taste versus agreement in moral principles.

What's wrong with the existing example of sweet food = yum having more agreement than slaying = boo?

The FA has the authority because they are the one who makes the league, makes the rules that teams and people join in.

Well, I am the one who is making the rules and writing it down, wouldn't that make me the authority too?

As to all the ways a rule can be made objectively binding, I have no idea, but I’m open to hearing any and all cases.

Having the strength to force people to follow?

I could say there is a rule that soccer pitches must be 75 meters by 25 meters. Pitches that don’t have those dimensions wouldn’t be compliant with my rule, we could objectively verify that, but so what? I have no objective authority or connection to establish one should comply with my rule.

So you have an objective standard that's not objectively binding?

Objective nature and purpose are tied together because a standard requires a goal or purpose that objective truths about the natures of those placed under that goal or purpose would apply. There needs to be a goal and truths getting us to that goal. Objective nature alone gives us truths that aren’t aimed at any particular thing, so it can go in any direction. Objective purpose alone gives us a goal that contradict the nature of those supposedly asked to strive for that goal.

That's my point, objective nature alone isn't good enough, objective purpose alone is enough. So no need to tied the two together, your argument is "objective purpose -> objective morality" not "objective purpose & objective nature -> objective morality."

How can an unintentional creation give us a purpose? It seems definitionally impossible. It sounds like saying a round shape is a square.

I agree. Which is why I didn't mention purpose in my proposal for atheistic grounding of objective morality.

It just seems to me to trivially follow that intentional creations are how one could get an objective purpose in that thing created.

It's trivially follow that intentional creations could get you a purpose. The non-trivial part is getting objectivity into that.

Because you say you agree with her, but you disagree with what I think she means by saying that.

No, I agree with that 100% after you explained that by "the one engaging in the act" she meant the level 1 judge.

How? I said rationality alone does determine it one way or the other.

Then you have some explaining to do. You said "there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion," which to me is another way of saying "there is no objective standard to determine it one way or the other." If rationality alone does determine it one way or the other, then that would qualify as one objective standard to determine it. Sounds like you have a contradiction.

4) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice
5) if there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one should be rationally okay with their choice (premise)
6) Therefore, one should be rationally okay with their choice (e.g., people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream)

Making progress. Justify premise 5, fill in this gap please:
5.1) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice (premise)
...
5.n) one should be rationally okay with their choice

I think you are still conflating two distinct things.

(a) When I say “I think vanilla is tasty,” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(b) When I say “I think the tastiness of vanilla will differ depending on who you ask,” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(c) When I say “because vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, I’m okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream.” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(d) When I say “I think the shape of the Earth is round,” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X. That this is what I think doesn’t mean it is a matter of opinion.

Now, to bring this back to the point. You said there is no separating a statement about the taste from a statement about individuals since tastes are inherently tied to individuals. There is in the sense of having a (1) and (2) for each of these statements. If saying (c2) is a statement about the taste being mine, then so is saying (d2). No, (d2) is not a statement about my individual taste, but about the Earth’s shape being an objective truth. In the same way, (c2) is not a statement about my individual taste, but about how subjectivity leads to being okay with choices that don’t agree with my individual taste.

No, that's like saying "because chocolate ice-cream is sweet, I’m okay with eating it" isn't a statement about my individual taste, but about how sweetness leads to being okay with chocolate favor even though I prefer vanilla. Giving a reason for why you like something doesn't stop it from being about your likes and dislikes. (a) and (c) are statement about individual taste; (b) and (d) aren't, they are about objective truth.

I think you are confusing one's taste with one's view. While all 4 are an individual's views, only (a) and (c) are about their tastes. Saying "the Earth is round" or "tastiness of vanilla differs" tells you nothing about a person's likes and dislikes. In contrast saying "vanilla is tasty" and "I am okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream because...," tells you what that person like.

[The Tanager]

Of course there's something wrong with denying rights to others. It's right there where it says "rights". If one doesn't have rights though, it's much easier to punish them. We see this happening across Murica, where the simple right to read a book, or dress a certain way, is under attack

If morality is subjective, then it’s “wrong” in exactly the same sense that eating vanilla instead of chocolate is “wrong,” but not how most people usually mean “wrong”. And those are “rights” in exactly the same way eating vanilla ice cream is a “right,” but not how most people usually mean “rights”.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #411]

1. I’m claiming that such an intentional act of creation, if it actually occurred, would logically lead to any moral principles that exist as being objective truths. That says nothing about if such a thing is true about our reality.

I’m also claiming that an unintentional act of creation (such as the Big Bang within an atheistic worldview), if it actually occurred, would logically lead to any moral principles that exist as being subjective truths. This also says nothing about if such a thing is true about our reality.

2. Yes, if morals are Real (i.e., objective truths), then they transcend individual minds or understandings that are encompassed by them.

3. No one directly addressed whether morals are material or non-material. Do you think they are material things? I do think reductionist materialism, which asserts morals are reducible to matter, would still logically lead to moral subjectivism, but we haven’t gone into depth there. We can explore that if this is on target of your point here.

4. I’ve argued that if murder could objectively mesh with what it means to be a human via the Toy Maker’s choices, then it would be considered objectively moral as opposed to objectively immoral. I’m not sure there is a system that coherently claims that, but as of right now, it doesn’t seem logically impossible.

5. Parents reproduce what is already naturally in us; we can’t decide the child’s nature and purpose. We can have a subjective purpose for them, but we can’t put that into their very being.

We can have (at least some) creative control over the nature of artificial things, like computers, and provide objective purposes for them, so that we can objectively know that the computer is or isn’t doing what it was made to do in accordance with how it was made to do it.

6. I’m not clear on what you mean by “stuff” here? I think they are akin to laws of logic. What is the “stuff” you’d say logic is made of?

7. Making an argument that shows that aliens made the pyramids is an explanation to the question “Who/what made the pyramids.” It’s not an explanation to “how did they make the pyramids?” which is a good but different question.

Why do you think not explaining a complete process of “how” X works means that X doesn’t work? Ancient humans knew that rain affected them, without knowing the entire process of how it did so.

8. I didn’t argue that morals are made from God’s “stuff”.

9. God creating them is the same as God deciding what is and isn’t moral. If God created the physical universe, (i.e., decided what elements there would be, how they interact, etc.) would that make the shape of the Earth “subjective” because God just decided it was that?

10. I have explained why I think I have split the horns, responding to everything I’ve seen you say in response to it.

11. Yes, moral agency (which requires free will) could, logically, be given to some and not other creations. That’s why I’ve talked about human morality. I don’t think moral laws apply to all creatures like the laws of physics. Logical laws don’t apply to all creatures; only the rational ones. Moral laws only apply to moral agents.

12. What do you mean by “transcend” God? Your answer to the following question might help me see what you mean. If the Big Bang were the source of morals, how would they transcend the Big Bang?

13. I wasn’t aware you were contesting the definition of “morals”. We could be talking past each other there. How would you define them?

I have explained how they get transferred: through an intentional act of creation.

Whether they are enforced or not seems irrelevant to me in answering if they exist? We can talk about the existence of speed limits without going into how your town enforces or doesn’t enforce them.

[The Tanager]

Miscommunication again. I said they do have general agreement. The point was, general agreement does not imply objectivity.

I re-read the last few posts and think I understand your point now. You are saying there is strong general agreement in food tastes, yet I don’t think they are objective, right? But I don’t think there is strong general agreement in food tastes. Some people don’t have sweet tooths; preferring non-sweet dishes.

Well, I am the one who is making the rules and writing it down, wouldn't that make me the authority too?

The FA is making the game of Premier League soccer, which is an objective thing that has teams that play by the rules (well, they all try to sneak where they can, but you get the point, I think). You are just sharing your moral views, you aren’t creating the people you want to follow your rules.

Having the strength to force people to follow?

Would having the strength to brainwash everyone else into thinking the Earth is flat make that the objective truth? Wouldn’t that just be a change to people’s subjective views?

So you have an objective standard that's not objectively binding?

No, I’m a standard that produces specific rules that aren’t objectively binding on anyone else, which makes me a subjective standard.

Objective nature and purpose are tied together because a standard requires a goal or purpose that objective truths about the natures of those placed under that goal or purpose would apply. There needs to be a goal and truths getting us to that goal. Objective nature alone gives us truths that aren’t aimed at any particular thing, so it can go in any direction. Objective purpose alone gives us a goal that contradict the nature of those supposedly asked to strive for that goal.

That's my point, objective nature alone isn't good enough, objective purpose alone is enough. So no need to tied the two together, your argument is "objective purpose -> objective morality" not "objective purpose & objective nature -> objective morality."

I don’t think objective purpose alone is enough. We’d have a goal (say “avoid physical damage”) but the objective nature gets us what physical damage would consist of.

I agree. Which is why I didn't mention purpose in my proposal for atheistic grounding of objective morality.

Without objective purpose, we can have that losing a finger is a form of physical damage, but there is no goal that says “avoid physical damage”.

It's trivially follow that intentional creations could get you a purpose. The non-trivial part is getting objectivity into that.

I don’t see why. If you create a computer to do X, then that is its objective purpose in being created. You get to decide that. Someone else could come along and try to do something else with it and that new purpose could benefit from some element of the nature you gave the computer, but that isn’t the goal for which it was created.

Then you have some explaining to do. You said "there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion," which to me is another way of saying "there is no objective standard to determine it one way or the other." If rationality alone does determine it one way or the other, then that would qualify as one objective standard to determine it. Sounds like you have a contradiction.

To me “no way to determine something one way or the other” would be agnosticism. It would be saying “I don’t know if it’s okay for Bust Nak to eat vanilla because Bust Nak likes it.” But Suzie (I don’t know the exact phrasing, so if the content is different, sorry, but I think you’ll get the point) says “I believe it is okay for Bust Nak to eat vanilla because Bust Nak likes it and there is no objective standard that overrides Bust Nak’s subjective view. Suzie believes the lack of objective food tastes is why she should be okay with Bust Nak’s ice cream choice.

Making progress. Justify premise 5, fill in this gap please:
5.1) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice (premise)
...
5.n) one should be rationally okay with their choice

Your (5.1) is my (4) and your (5.n) is my (6). I’m confused there, but here’s another crack:

5) If one has no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one should be rationally okay with their choice.

5.1) One should have a good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice.
5.2) Having an objective standard that their choice goes against is the only good reason one has (I’m open to changing this if you have other good reasons)
5.3) Therefore, if there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one has no good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice.

No, that's like saying "because chocolate ice-cream is sweet, I’m okay with eating it" isn't a statement about my individual taste, but about how sweetness leads to being okay with chocolate favor even though I prefer vanilla. Giving a reason for why you like something doesn't stop it from being about your likes and dislikes. (a) and (c) are statement about individual taste; (b) and (d) aren't, they are about objective truth.

I think you are confusing one's taste with one's view. While all 4 are an individual's views, only (a) and (c) are about their tastes. Saying "the Earth is round" or "tastiness of vanilla differs" tells you nothing about a person's likes and dislikes. In contrast saying "vanilla is tasty" and "I am okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream because...," tells you what that person like.

I think the context is getting confused; probably my fault. My point is that one could claim it’s objectively true that the shape of the earth is a subjective feature of reality. This isn’t a claim about the taste of one or many (that they “prefer” a flat earth, while someone else “prefers” a round earth, while another “prefers” a triangular earth, etc.), but a statement meant to be taken as objectively true: that the shape of the earth is a subjective feature of reality. That statement isn’t really about individual “tastes”, even though it takes into consideration data on individual “tastes”. In the same way, saying morality is a subjective feature of reality is not a statement about individual moral tastes, even though it takes into consideration data on individual tastes, including one’s own individual taste.

[JoeyKnothead]

Of course there's something wrong with denying rights to others. It's right there where it says "rights". If one doesn't have rights though, it's much easier to punish them. We see this happening across Murica, where the simple right to read a book, or dress a certain way, is under attack

If morality is subjective, then it’s “wrong” in exactly the same sense that eating vanilla instead of chocolate is “wrong,” but not how most people usually mean “wrong”. And those are “rights” in exactly the same way eating vanilla ice cream is a “right,” but not how most people usually mean “rights”.

Some like vanilla, some don't. Subjectives tastes.

Your point, what is it?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #411]

1. I’m claiming that such an intentional act of creation, if it actually occurred, would logically lead to any moral principles that exist as being objective truths. That says nothing about if such a thing is true about our reality.

A. How? If I make a child, does that mean I can tell it that it is moral to kill all of humanity?
B. Is there nothing that could be considered moral and immoral at the same time under this view? One IAoC says one set of moral values, another says a different thing.

I’m also claiming that an unintentional act of creation (such as the Big Bang within an atheistic worldview), if it actually occurred, would logically lead to any moral principles that exist as being subjective truths. This also says nothing about if such a thing is true about our reality.

Yet, the same random property that caused the "God" agent to be what it is morally, (God didn't choose it's moral values) are the same impersonal random property that caused the universe. What caused God to determine what is moral? You seem to allude to morals being real - and outside of the Maker (since they get to choose which morals to pick for their Creation) - so where did they come from? I don't see why they couldn't be argued to be part of the Universe. If they are real, they are made of Magic, and if the Maker is made of Magic, then they are the same substance - the Maker didn't Create them.
It's a mess.

2. Yes, if morals are Real (i.e., objective truths), then they transcend individual minds or understandings that are encompassed by them.

Including the Maker, right? Which means they could also have been created by the Big Bang, or existed before the Big Bang, therefore, Objective in an Atheistic universe. After all, your hypothesis could be wrong (that there is a Moral Making Maker).

3. No one directly addressed whether morals are material or non-material. Do you think they are material things? I do think reductionist materialism, which asserts morals are reducible to matter, would still logically lead to moral subjectivism, but we haven’t gone into depth there. We can explore that if this is on target of your point here.

Again, what I believe has been covered (Morals = Humor = Art = Beauty = Social Norms: all subjective)
However, many Moral Theorists argue they are Real - as in "made of Magic" or some such thing. If so, they could exist independent of the Toy Maker.

4. I’ve argued that if murder could objectively mesh with what it means to be a human via the Toy Maker’s choices, then it would be considered objectively moral as opposed to objectively immoral. I’m not sure there is a system that coherently claims that, but as of right now, it doesn’t seem logically impossible.

but, by what standard does the Maker have to use to determine murder is wrong?

5. Parents reproduce what is already naturally in us; we can’t decide the child’s nature and purpose. We can have a subjective purpose for them, but we can’t put that into their very being.

And, there we have it. So, Creation for you is ex nihilo. Your religious upbringing is obvious.
So, from here on out, you can't argue that morals are made of stuff other than God-stuff (aka Magic), but God didn't make that stuff, either. And you have to explain how Non-Matter can create - out of nothing - Matter. At this point you are simply waving your hand to say "How doesn't matter! It's Magic and I don't have to explain Magic!"

We can have (at least some) creative control over the nature of artificial things, like computers, and provide objective purposes for them, so that we can objectively know that the computer is or isn’t doing what it was made to do in accordance with how it was made to do it.

Nothing we would ever do would fulfill your idea of creating ex nihilo. in making a computer, we are simply reconfiguring existing "stuff". You have effectively defined your Toy Maker to be a very specific Toy Maker - as I suggested many posts ago.

6. I’m not clear on what you mean by “stuff” here? I think they are akin to laws of logic. What is the “stuff” you’d say logic is made of?

Magic stuff. I don't think logic is made of stuff, but you're the one trying to explain your position. Do you believe God created Logic, too? Is it the same "stuff" as Morals? (We've been very clear that there is Matter, Non-Matter (numbers), and other "stuff" (morals, supernatural, magic).
I'm trying to understand how you envision all of this.

7. Making an argument that shows that aliens made the pyramids is an explanation to the question “Who/what made the pyramids.” It’s not an explanation to “how did they make the pyramids?” which is a good but different question.

Why do you think not explaining a complete process of “how” X works means that X doesn’t work? Ancient humans knew that rain affected them, without knowing the entire process of how it did so.

we have a very differnt idea of what makes a Good Explanation.

8. I didn’t argue that morals are made from God’s “stuff”.

Earlier, I though you did. but, OK, then they are other "stuff", perhaps made by an impersonal random action like the Big Bang? Are we back to this?

9. God creating them is the same as God deciding what is and isn’t moral. If God created the physical universe, (i.e., decided what elements there would be, how they interact, etc.) would that make the shape of the Earth “subjective” because God just decided it was that?

If God decided the Earth was a cube, he'd be wrong, right?
If God decided that murdering children for pleasure was Good, he'd be wrong, right?
See the problem? Objective means it's true whether God thinks it or not. He didn't get to decide that a cube has a diameter - it's simply a fact of our physical realm, or the concept of cubes and spheres. The mathematics transcends God. He can't make a cubed sphere. He may also not be able to make murdering children for fun Good.
If he did, that would be the definition of Subjective - despite your protestations that the "Mob Boss" gets to decide and enforce his likes and dislikes.
We've been over this many times.

10. I have explained why I think I have split the horns, responding to everything I’ve seen you say in response to it.

You haven't. It's been a thorny problem for thousands of years. I wouldn't expect you or I to solve it.

11. Yes, moral agency (which requires free will) could, logically, be given to some and not other creations. That’s why I’ve talked about human morality. I don’t think moral laws apply to all creatures like the laws of physics. Logical laws don’t apply to all creatures; only the rational ones. Moral laws only apply to moral agents.

Indeed, which really supports my position that morals are subjective, though, they could be argued by some to be Objective in Moral Agents by the fact that they can recognize the harm they cause to others. Doesn't my view seem so parsimoniuos?

12. What do you mean by “transcend” God? Your answer to the following question might help me see what you mean. If the Big Bang were the source of morals, how would they transcend the Big Bang?

If God didn't make them (decide them), then they exist independently of God. Even if God embodies them (which you said he didn't - that morals weren't the same stuff as ideas, numbers, concepts, but had some other property of concreteness) - IF THEY ARE OBJECTIVE - then they exist outside of God's ability to decide what they are, even for his creation.

13. I wasn’t aware you were contesting the definition of “morals”. We could be talking past each other there. How would you define them?

Different Moral theorists define them differently. While we all agree on how they seem to manifest in our lives (the sense of Right and Wrong), we've been having a lengthy discussion of what they are 'made of'. I believe they are like opinions, based on a Moral Agents recognition of what harms other sentient Beings.

You seem to suggest they are something else.

I have explained how they get transferred: through an intentional act of creation.

Whether they are enforced or not seems irrelevant to me in answering if they exist? We can talk about the existence of speed limits without going into how your town enforces or doesn’t enforce them.

OK, they are transferred. Where are they transferred from? In what Medium? Are they legal edicts or logical rules (ideas, concepts)? Are they concreta in that they exist independently, and objectively in the universe?

How are they transferred, and by transferring them, what gives them the weight they seem to have as important to follow? That is, why would we care if they were transferred? Why is the act of transferring of any interest to us? (You have to admit, the enforcement is the only thing that gives them weight).

Just give your best defintiion - as in-depth as you can - of what morals are, where they come from, how they are made, etc. I know you feel you've done this, but this gives you an opportunity to write a full account of your "Divine Command Theory as Intentional Act of Creation" Hypothesis for us all to see.

For my part, here is what you've been asking (though I don't hold this position):

1. The Act of Creation imbues the Creation with objective qualities, whether Intentional or Unintentional. (We are what we are by whatever made us)
2a. If the Creation is a Moral Agent, then the mere fact that it is capable of recognizing morality makes it Objectively bound to the morality that it embodied by it's objective nature. (If we understand morality, we are bound by morality)
2b. If the object can be harmed (harm being defined as anything that would significantly stop it fully flourishing within it's nature (and within the bounds of it's moral framework)). (Morality addresses harm, and whether angel or men, harm is to be avoided - and, morality dictates that we recognize that as an Imperative).
2c. Morals, if Objective (see 1&2), exist independent of anything that would decide what they are - even (and this is important) whether the Maker was making us from scratch with the idea that "if I make them human, they will be bound by moral laws that are directly embodied in their physical nature": That is, it's still wrong to create life to murder babies for fun (if morals are objective) whether you design that creature for that sole purpose or not.
3. Therefore, if Morals are Objective, they transcend the Maker of the Moral Agents.

The point being, you can't claim God - simply by the IAoC can decide that he's going to make a species of baby murderers in one Universe, then make it completely immoral in another Universe - If morals are Objective.

The same reason for Objective Morals exists whether there is a God or not because the Morals would be embodied in the reality of the creatures nature - regardless.

Another way: God has made (presumably) murdering morally wrong. Murder is wrong because it stops a sentient creature it's ability to flourish - not just because God doesn't like it (because the latter would be subjective). But, it's also because God (presumably) made us physical and able to die - and able to recognize that murder is wrong. If he decided that murder was Good - it wouldn't change the fact that we die, and our flourishing was interrupted. (Forget the follow on arguments that God could let the person live in another realm - that's a completely different and specious argument).

Again, these are the well-worn ideas that you will find everywhere Morals are discussed.

Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/9/ethics
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewfor ... 9b0342c253

[Bust Nak]

I re-read the last few posts and think I understand your point now. You are saying there is strong general agreement in food tastes, yet I don’t think they are objective, right? But I don’t think there is strong general agreement in food tastes. Some people don’t have sweet tooths; preferring non-sweet dishes.

You get the same thing in morality, general agreement, with lots of variations.

The FA is making the game of Premier League soccer, which is an objective thing that has teams that play by the rules (well, they all try to sneak where they can, but you get the point, I think). You are just sharing your moral views, you aren’t creating the people you want to follow your rules.

So what? FA are just sharing their view on what they expect the pitch size to be. They didn't create the people they want to follow their rules either.

Would having the strength to brainwash everyone else into thinking the Earth is flat make that the objective truth?

No, I also don't see what rule would be in play here. I was talking about binding rules.

Wouldn’t that just be a change to people’s subjective views?

That's kinda the point, binding or not, doesn't look all that relevant as to whether something is objective or not.

No, I’m a standard that produces specific rules that aren’t objectively binding on anyone else, which makes me a subjective standard.

But you don't know what makes a rule objectively binding?

I don’t think objective purpose alone is enough. We’d have a goal (say “avoid physical damage”) but the objective nature gets us what physical damage would consist of.

Then why not be more specific like "avoid losing a finger," build the details into the rules.

Without objective purpose, we can have that losing a finger is a form of physical damage, but there is no goal that says “avoid physical damage”.

I agree. That's why I didn't mention goals in my proposal for grounding objective morality either. Just objective nature.

I don’t see why. If you create a computer to do X, then that is its objective purpose in being created. You get to decide that.

And that's what makes it subjective: a subject decided that. In contrast with objective features, where no one gets to decide anything, no one gets to decide what shape the Earth is, it is what it is, a ball.

Someone else could come along and try to do something else with it and that new purpose could benefit from some element of the nature you gave the computer, but that isn’t the goal for which it was created.

Sure. The point is still this: the goal for which something was created is not the same thing as objective goal.

To me “no way to determine something one way or the other” would be agnosticism. It would be saying “I don’t know if it’s okay for Bust Nak to eat vanilla because Bust Nak likes it.” But Suzie (I don’t know the exact phrasing, so if the content is different, sorry, but I think you’ll get the point) says “I believe it is okay for Bust Nak to eat vanilla because Bust Nak likes it and there is no objective standard that overrides Bust Nak’s subjective view. Suzie believes the lack of objective food tastes is why she should be okay with Bust Nak’s ice cream choice.

So which is it, no objective standard->agnosticism, or no objective standard->be okay?

5) If one has no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one should be rationally okay with their choice.

5.1) One should have a good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice.
5.2) Having an objective standard that their choice goes against is the only good reason one has (I’m open to changing this if you have other good reasons)
5.3) Therefore, if there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one has no good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice.

Okay, but that's not what I asked for, "no good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice is not the same thing" as "one should be rationally okay with their choice." There is no good reason to be rationally okay with their choice, either.

My point is that one could claim it’s objectively true that the shape of the earth is a subjective feature of reality. This isn’t a claim about the taste of one or many (that they “prefer” a flat earth, while someone else “prefers” a round earth, while another “prefers” a triangular earth, etc.), but a statement meant to be taken as objectively true: that the shape of the earth is a subjective feature of reality. That statement isn’t really about individual “tastes”, even though it takes into consideration data on individual “tastes”. In the same way, saying morality is a subjective feature of reality is not a statement about individual moral tastes, even though it takes into consideration data on individual tastes, including one’s own individual taste.

Okay, I agree with all of that, I've been make the same point too. Was there anything I said that gave you the impression that I would object to any of that?

[The Tanager]

If morality is subjective, then it’s “wrong” in exactly the same sense that eating vanilla instead of chocolate is “wrong,” but not how most people usually mean “wrong”. And those are “rights” in exactly the same way eating vanilla ice cream is a “right,” but not how most people usually mean “rights”.

Some like vanilla, some don't. Subjectives tastes.

Your point, what is it?

That a subjectivist, as a subjectivist, is okay with other people basing their food choice on their subjective taste. They don’t call that choice wrong. In the same way, a subjectivist, as a subjectivist, should also be okay with other people basing their moral choice on their subjective taste. They shouldn’t call that choice wrong. Or, if they do, then they should also call the food choice of other people wrong.

[The Tanager]

A. How? If I make a child, does that mean I can tell it that it is moral to kill all of humanity?

You aren’t responsible for what that child is; you don’t have control over its nature.

B. Is there nothing that could be considered moral and immoral at the same time under this view? One IAoC says one set of moral values, another says a different thing.

You could possibly have different creatures where one act would be moral for one and immoral for another. But the same act logically couldn’t be moral and immoral for the same creature.

Yet, the same random property that caused the "God" agent to be what it is morally, (God didn't choose it's moral values) are the same impersonal random property that caused the universe. What caused God to determine what is moral?

Not choosing its moral values is not the same thing as having some other random property or thing choosing its moral values. The two options are (1) caused by another thing or (2) uncaused. At some point, to avoid an illogical infinite regress, there must be (2) an uncaused cause. That’s true if that (2) uncaused cause is God or the Universe or whatever.

You seem to allude to morals being real - and outside of the Maker (since they get to choose which morals to pick for their Creation) - so where did they come from? I don't see why they couldn't be argued to be part of the Universe. If they are real, they are made of Magic, and if the Maker is made of Magic, then they are the same substance - the Maker didn't Create them.

Any creative decision the Maker makes will necessarily have logical possibilities within it. Creating certain laws of physics will result in matter coming together in certain ways and not others (say, making planets round instead of flat). That doesn’t mean the laws of physics pre-exist the Maker and the Maker is following something outside of Himself in choosing one set of laws over another.

So, in creating humans with a specific nature, God has different logical possibilities to choose from, for instance, “I want them to hurt each other” or “I want them not to hurt each other”. But this doesn’t mean morals are some real things that pre-exist God. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood your critique.

Including the Maker, right? Which means they could also have been created by the Big Bang, or existed before the Big Bang, therefore, Objective in an Atheistic universe. After all, your hypothesis could be wrong (that there is a Moral Making Maker).

While my hypothesis could be wrong, you are misunderstanding a corollary. If morals are Real and created by the Maker, then, by definition, they don’t transcend the Maker. That’s why I keep saying human morality is objective.

Again, what I believe has been covered (Morals = Humor = Art = Beauty = Social Norms: all subjective)
However, many Moral Theorists argue they are Real - as in "made of Magic" or some such thing. If so, they could exist independent of the Toy Maker.

I’m open to discussing any moral theory. If the theory is simply saying “objective morals are a brute fact,” then this isn’t really an argument; it’s an assertion. An argument involves the giving of reasons to believe the assertion is true. A theistic theory that simply says “God making objective morals is a brute fact” with no reasoning in support is also an assertion. If true, then morals are objective, but we are dealing with arguments, not assertions.

but, by what standard does the Maker have to use to determine murder is wrong?

There is no objective standard above the Maker that calls it wrong. Just like if the Big Bang somehow created objective morals, there would be no objective standard above the Big Bang that calls it wrong. We’ve been talking about human morality. What is objectively wrong for humans can come from their objective nature and purpose. That which is responsible for those two things is the source of this objective wrongness.

And, there we have it. So, Creation for you is ex nihilo. Your religious upbringing is obvious.

Of course, giving something its nature is ex nihilo, otherwise you are working with stuff that already has a nature. Like what parents do. You can’t give something its nature if it’s nature was already present before you did something with it. This is logic, not religion.

So, from here on out, you can't argue that morals are made of stuff other than God-stuff (aka Magic), but God didn't make that stuff, either. And you have to explain how Non-Matter can create - out of nothing - Matter. At this point you are simply waving your hand to say "How doesn't matter! It's Magic and I don't have to explain Magic!"

I’ll hold off on the “stuff” part until later. I don’t see the problem with creating a new substance. One uses their causal powers to create a substance that didn’t exist before. Are you assuming creation can only be a transformation of what is already present? If so, why? Why would everything that exists have to be eternal?

We can call it “magic,” but at least it’s magic being performed by a magician. Perhaps if you gave an explanation for magic (assuming it is truly magic), I could see your point better and then give the explanation you are asking for?

Nothing we would ever do would fulfill your idea of creating ex nihilo. in making a computer, we are simply reconfiguring existing "stuff". You have effectively defined your Toy Maker to be a very specific Toy Maker - as I suggested many posts ago.

Yes, a Toy Maker, that simply took stuff that already had a nature, wouldn’t be responsible for that nature being the way it is. That is trivially true.

Magic stuff. I don't think logic is made of stuff, but you're the one trying to explain your position. Do you believe God created Logic, too? Is it the same "stuff" as Morals? (We've been very clear that there is Matter, Non-Matter (numbers), and other "stuff" (morals, supernatural, magic).
I'm trying to understand how you envision all of this.

I agree with you, logic isn’t made of stuff. I do think logic comes from the nature of God as well. If the Maker was illogical, then its creations would reflect that as well. Moral truths are akin to logical truths. So, what’s the problem with these not being made of “stuff”?

7. Making an argument that shows that aliens made the pyramids is an explanation to the question “Who/what made the pyramids.” It’s not an explanation to “how did they make the pyramids?” which is a good but different question.

Why do you think not explaining a complete process of “how” X works means that X doesn’t work? Ancient humans knew that rain affected them, without knowing the entire process of how it did so.

we have a very differnt idea of what makes a Good Explanation.

I didn’t say it was a good explanation; I simply said it was an explanation to a specific question that is not necessarily affected by not having an explanation to a different question.

If God decided the Earth was a cube, he'd be wrong, right?
If God decided that murdering children for pleasure was Good, he'd be wrong, right?
See the problem? Objective means it's true whether God thinks it or not. He didn't get to decide that a cube has a diameter - it's simply a fact of our physical realm, or the concept of cubes and spheres. The mathematics transcends God. He can't make a cubed sphere. He may also not be able to make murdering children for fun Good.
If he did, that would be the definition of Subjective - despite your protestations that the "Mob Boss" gets to decide and enforce his likes and dislikes.
We've been over this many times.

That depends on when we are asking that question. If God decided the Earth would be a cube and then made it so, God couldn’t be wrong. It would be a cube because of God’s decision. If God decided the Earth would be a sphere, made it so, and then later said “it’s a cube,” even though it’s clearly a sphere, then God would be wrong.

The Maker (whether God or the Big Bang or whatever) is responsible for the facts of our physical realm. The Maker is responsible for what is objectively true. Our concepts reflect those objective realities. One could conceivably make a reality that isn’t mathematical or isn’t logical and then those things wouldn’t be objective truths.

10. I have explained why I think I have split the horns, responding to everything I’ve seen you say in response to it.

You haven't. It's been a thorny problem for thousands of years. I wouldn't expect you or I to solve it.

I haven’t what? I made two claims: (1) I have explained why I think I have split the horn and (2) I have responded to everything I’ve seen you say in response to my explanations. I didn’t claim (3) I have objectively solved the dilemma.

Indeed, which really supports my position that morals are subjective, though, they could be argued by some to be Objective in Moral Agents by the fact that they can recognize the harm they cause to others. Doesn't my view seem so parsimoniuos?

How does some creatures being moral agents (i.e., humans) and some not support your position that human morals are subjective? The realm of human morals is about just humans, not other creatures.

If God didn't make them (decide them), then they exist independently of God. Even if God embodies them (which you said he didn't - that morals weren't the same stuff as ideas, numbers, concepts, but had some other property of concreteness) - IF THEY ARE OBJECTIVE - then they exist outside of God's ability to decide what they are, even for his creation.

But I do think God made them. As creations, they exist outside of God know because of that choice just like the physical universe would exist outside of God because of God’s choice to make it. That is existing outside of God because of God’s ability to decide what they are. If the Big Bang made objective morals, then although they exist outside of the Big Bang, that doesn’t mean the Big Bang was unable to decide or make them what they are.

Different Moral theorists define them differently. While we all agree on how they seem to manifest in our lives (the sense of Right and Wrong), we've been having a lengthy discussion of what they are 'made of'. I believe they are like opinions, based on a Moral Agents recognition of what harms other sentient Beings.

You seem to suggest they are something else.

Yes, I do believe they are something else, but as far as my claim goes in this thread, I’m not suggesting they are something else. I’m only suggesting that your atheism is consistent with your moral theory, that moral objectivists’ atheism isn’t consistent with their moral theory, and that some moral objectivists’ theism is consistent with their moral theory.

OK, they are transferred. Where are they transferred from? In what Medium? Are they legal edicts or logical rules (ideas, concepts)? Are they concreta in that they exist independently, and objectively in the universe?

They are akin to logical rules. They are not what I think you mean by concreta. They come from the mind of the Maker.

How are they transferred, and by transferring them, what gives them the weight they seem to have as important to follow? That is, why would we care if they were transferred? Why is the act of transferring of any interest to us? (You have to admit, the enforcement is the only thing that gives them weight).

They are transferred to humans via the act of creation. That gives them weight. We should care because, in not following them, we are actually diminishing our joy in life, even though it doesn’t always look that way to us. We are choosing to settle for second best (at best).

Just give your best defintiion - as in-depth as you can - of what morals are, where they come from, how they are made, etc. I know you feel you've done this, but this gives you an opportunity to write a full account of your "Divine Command Theory as Intentional Act of Creation" Hypothesis for us all to see.

1. The act of creation imbues the Creation with objective qualities, whether intentional or unintentional.
2. An intentional act of creation imbues the Creation with an objective goal.
3. If the Creation is a moral agent, then it is bound to the morality embodied by its objective nature and purpose, as long as it is capable of recognizing this morality
4. From (1) we know what can objectively harm the Creation. From (2) we know the goal from which to judge which harms are bad. These together give us objective morals
5. Objective morals exist independent of moral agents.
6. Objective morals logically cannot exist independent of that which decides what they are (i.e., the standard).

For my part, here is what you've been asking (though I don't hold this position):

1. The Act of Creation imbues the Creation with objective qualities, whether Intentional or Unintentional. (We are what we are by whatever made us)
2a. If the Creation is a Moral Agent, then the mere fact that it is capable of recognizing morality makes it Objectively bound to the morality that it embodied by it's objective nature. (If we understand morality, we are bound by morality)
2b. If the object can be harmed (harm being defined as anything that would significantly stop it fully flourishing within it's nature (and within the bounds of it's moral framework)). (Morality addresses harm, and whether angel or men, harm is to be avoided - and, morality dictates that we recognize that as an Imperative).
2c. Morals, if Objective (see 1&2), exist independent of anything that would decide what they are - even (and this is important) whether the Maker was making us from scratch with the idea that "if I make them human, they will be bound by moral laws that are directly embodied in their physical nature": That is, it's still wrong to create life to murder babies for fun (if morals are objective) whether you design that creature for that sole purpose or not.
3. Therefore, if Morals are Objective, they transcend the Maker of the Moral Agents.

The point being, you can't claim God - simply by the IAoC can decide that he's going to make a species of baby murderers in one Universe, then make it completely immoral in another Universe - If morals are Objective.

The same reason for Objective Morals exists whether there is a God or not because the Morals would be embodied in the reality of the creatures nature - regardless.

If this argument were sound, yes. The two major points of disagreement are (a) I think objective nature alone isn’t enough, we also need an objective purpose and (b) that objective morals must transcend the standard, the Maker of them. Even though you don’t hold this position, you are giving it, so why is objective nature alone enough? And why must objective morals transcend the Maker?