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?

[The Tanager]

At this point, because your definition of "being" is every object, the question would need to be reframed once you explain what would constitute a "necessary agent". Until then, there is nothing relevant to pursue because the belief you have expressed, is vague in that regard.

I said not all beings are necessarily moral agents, not “necessary agents”. A moral agent is a being who has moral duties, that is, a moral standard imposed upon them that they are supposed to follow. I see no reason to believe all sentient beings must be moral agents. I’m not saying all of them aren’t, but that even if all beings were sentient, there is no logical necessity for them to be a moral agent. All of that to say that I’m talking about human morality, not some morality that is over everything that exists.

Morality is like an idea for something.

An idea for a lightbulb remains an idea until it is made real by organizing matter.

Once a lightbulb is made real, it is a lightbulb. It is not an idea.

One can point at a lightbulb and agree that it was an idea which was made into a real and functionable object of organized matter. The object remains identifiable as a lightbulb, no matter its shape, size, color, or placement.

As an idea. morality doesn't have those same functioning properties and is hard to identify, hence the question "how do we know what is right and wrong?" as opposed to an easier to answer question "how do we know what is a lightbulb?"

We cannot point to morality as an actual thing, because morality appears as a lot of different things, not always in agreement. It is more in appearance as ideas which are used to try an organize consciousness housed in organized matter rather than being an actual object - like a lightbulb - of organized matter.

Help me understand your reasoning here. It sounds like you are arguing that morality can’t be identified as an objective reality, as true, because (1) it’s not a physical thing and (2) people disagree about what is moral and immoral.

I have read what you claim about God here in this thread, up to page 17 and it seems clear that you are claiming that God is an objective thing.

What post makes you think I said that? I absolutely was not saying that (even though I believe it is true).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #601]

A moral agent is a being who has moral duties, that is, a moral standard imposed upon them that they are supposed to follow.

So are you saying that it is moral standards which are objective rather than morality/morals?Help me understand your reasoning here. It sounds like you are arguing that morality can’t be identified as an objective reality, as true, because (1) it’s not a physical thing and (2) people disagree about what is moral and immoral.

I am saying that, yes.

I have read what you claim about God here in this thread, up to page 17 and it seems clear that you are claiming that God is an objective thing.

What post makes you think I said that?

Here are a variety of statements you made about God, from a number of posts I read up to page 17 of this thread.

God would be responsible for making humans to be concerned with their own flourishing (and whether part of that includes the flourishing of non-humans) and what objectively leads to that flourishing.

I didn't say one's belief in God has anything to do with this. Also, I agree that it could be that a god would exist and human morality still be subjective. I've only said that some forms of theism would lead to human morality being objective, not that all forms of theism would.

I’m only saying that if God exists, morality could be objective and that if atheism is true, then morality would not be objective. I’ve shared why I think atheism can’t give us objective morality.

Part of my support rests on things you won’t agree with: that free will would be preferable to a loving God over determinism, the existence of such a God, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the new testament documents on preserving Jesus’ teaching, etc….

I haven’t said God doesn’t change God’s mind. But, since I’ve grounded human morality objectively in our design and purpose, even if God changed God’s mind, what is objectively moral for us would not change unless God changed our design and purpose along with that.

In the case I laid out, God isn’t deciding whether morality is objective or not. God, by the very act of creating humans with a nature and a purpose necessarily is building objectivity into morality.

I agree what God is would be “brute fact”. That doesn’t make human morality subjective.

God’s values are just eternally the way they are. But we are talking about human morality. Are certain actions moral/immoral for us and, if so, what makes that so? The objectivity of human morals is grounded in our nature as humans (what we are made up of, what benefits and harms us, etc.) plus having a specific purpose in reality (to build each other up, take care of each other, whatever).

God, as the creator of everything, would obviously know those things objectively. I know the objective meanings of every poem I write by the very nature of being the creator of them. God would know every objective fact of creation by the very nature of being the creator of them.

God would give us objective morality by designing our nature (that we are physical, what harms our body, what types of activities would be joyful to our minds, etc.) and by giving us a purpose within the world (as moral agents, having spheres of influence, etc.).

I absolutely was not saying that (even though I believe it is true).

So you are not saying that, even that you believe it is true? The reason I commented that it appears this is part of your argument that God is an objective thing, has to do with your claim that morals are objective and since it is clear that your posts mentioning God as the source of human morality, I thought it prudent to offer some critique on the belief, in the hopes that we can move forward with this.

I offer the same critique as before.
______________
I see that you are basing your opinions/beliefs about that against the alternative atheism presents regarding morality and in that, it is necessary for you to present God as an object rather than a subject, which is where you and I appear to differ in our views.

As you know, I regard all theistic beliefs as sourced in mindful phenomena which I see as a local source in that all such phenomena derives from the planet mind and it is that mind which our own minds are most related to. Therefore we do agree that we get our sense of morals from a creator-mind, but the difference in my view from your own appears to be that you believe that mind is an objective thing, whereas I think all mindfulness is purely/perfectly subjective.

To example, if you and I were on the space station looking out at the planet we can agree that we observe the planet as an object.

What we also should be able to agree with is that what we are viewing is NOT the planet mind itself, but the object from which the planet mind expresses itself.

We need not confuse the planet with being the mind. We need not point at the object and claim that the object is the mind.

The same applies to all mindful forms - specifically re the argument of human morality - the object is not the mind and the mind is really what the human being is as it true core identity - not the body.

The body allows for different morals to subjectively form as criteria for expression in finding the best way for the human animals to socially prosper in the objective environment provided, and even that these moral ideas may work well enough to that end in different epochs, they still require changing as humans progress into new epochs.

I think there is confusion wrought through the belief that morals are from an objective source, be that God or not-God.

The mind/minds cannot be anything other than subjective, simply due to the nature of mindfulness.

[The Tanager]

So are you saying that it is moral standards which are objective rather than morality/morals?

We often use words in very different ways, so I'm going to have to start asking you for definitions before moving forward. How do you define those terms or the distinction between the two (i.e., moral standards and morals)?

So are you saying that it is moral standards which are objective rather than morality/morals?Help me understand your reasoning here. It sounds like you are arguing that morality can’t be identified as an objective reality, as true, because (1) it’s not a physical thing and (2) people disagree about what is moral and immoral.

I am saying that, yes.

(1) would be true if only physical things are objectively real. What evidence do you have for that being true? Not possibly true, but actually true?

(2) People disagree about the shape of the Earth but this doesn’t mean that there is no objective shape to it, so why does disagreement here mean no objective truth?

So you are not saying that, even that you believe it is true?

Yes. I don’t share all of my beliefs in every conversation. I try to stay on topic. My argument, that you quoted and are responding to, isn’t an argument that God exists. It is a claim about how some theisms could (if true) rationally account for objective morality, but atheistic worldviews (if true) don’t, by their own logic.

I see that you are basing your opinions/beliefs about that against the alternative atheism presents regarding morality and in that, it is necessary for you to present God as an object rather than a subject, which is where you and I appear to differ in our views.

Can you define ‘object’ and ‘subject’?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #603]

We often use words in very different ways, so I'm going to have to start asking you for definitions before moving forward. How do you define those terms or the distinction between the two (i.e., moral standards and morals)?

As I have said previously - morals are like ideas.

Moral standards would be like the lightbulb mentioned previously.

(1) would be true if only physical things are objectively real. What evidence do you have for that being true?

Real things.

(2) People disagree about the shape of the Earth but this doesn’t mean that there is no objective shape to it, so why does disagreement here mean no objective truth?

Are you suggesting that morals have shape?

Yes. I don’t share all of my beliefs in every conversation. I try to stay on topic. My argument, that you quoted and are responding to, isn’t an argument that God exists. It is a claim about how some theisms could (if true) rationally account for objective morality, but atheistic worldviews (if true) don’t, by their own logic.

I wasn't saying you were arguing that God exists.

Can you define ‘object’ and ‘subject’?

Object is organized matter.

Subject is mind.

[The Tanager]

As I have said previously - morals are like ideas.

Moral standards would be like the lightbulb mentioned previously.

I’m still not sure what you mean by the terms themselves. Could you give an example of a moral standard (one light bulb you point to) and an example of a moral (one idea you can’t point to)?

(1) would be true if only physical things are objectively real. What evidence do you have for that being true?

Real things.

Okay, to make sure I’m understanding your argument, it reads like this:

P1. Real things
C. Therefore, all real things are physical

But you must mean more than that, maybe something like this?:

P1. All things that we know are real are physical
C. Therefore, all real things are physical

Or perhaps you could correct any misunderstandings.

(2) People disagree about the shape of the Earth but this doesn’t mean that there is no objective shape to it, so why does disagreement here mean no objective truth?

Are you suggesting that morals have shape?

No. I’m suggesting that disagreement on X doesn’t logically mean there is no objective truth about X, whether X is about the Earth having a physical shape or objective morality or whether certain vitamins work or whatever.

Object is organized matter.

Subject is mind.

Okay, I’m definitely not saying God is an object. Can you define “mind”? I want to make sure I’m understanding the concept you attach to that term before I agree that I view God as a Mind.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #605]

I’m still not sure what you mean by the terms themselves. Could you give an example of a moral standard (one light bulb you point to) and an example of a moral (one idea you can’t point to)?

A moral standard would be like a written or spoken idea, manifested like the lightbulb, whereas a moral is a subjective idea. I can literally point to the one (the object) but not to the other (The subject).

Okay, to make sure I’m understanding your argument, it reads like this:

P1. Real things
C. Therefore, all real things are physical

But you must mean more than that, maybe something like this?:

P1. All things that we know are real are physical
C. Therefore, all real things are physical

Or perhaps you could correct any misunderstandings.

No. I’m suggesting that disagreement on X doesn’t logically mean there is no objective truth about X, whether X is about the Earth having a physical shape or objective morality or whether certain vitamins work or whatever.

Okay, I’m definitely not saying God is an object. Can you define “mind”? I want to make sure I’m understanding the concept you attach to that term before I agree that I view God as a Mind.

If we consider the evidence that human tribes positioned in areas on the planet which prohibited intercommunication in previous epochs, we can understand that the mythologies of said tribes derived from similar experiences said tribes/members of tribes had and reported.

The same applies to reports re NDEs/OOBEs et all, which are now reported through the internet, and the internet is a material symbol of a previously unknown connectivity re those similar experience had and the mythologies which came from those experiences....which is to say, the internet is a manifested example of something which has been happening naturally throughout human history, and represents a visible representation of a previously invisible reality.

As you know, I think this is fair evidence that the planet is mindful - not only because of the diverse biological lifeforms exhibiting consciousness/mindfulness, but also because of this evidence of invisible connectivity.

The dualist thinking/perception appears to cause confusion because of the idea that there are objective and subjective realities, but the confusion can be put to rest when one acknowledges that in all case of consciousness, consciousness itself is perfectly subjective and experiences objective things, subjectively.

Even if we consider that the planet being mindful, and that it is intimately connected with individual minds (human and other biological forms exhibiting mindfulness) and that this planet mind has the perception of being every mind re the biological life forms, that point of view or perception the planet mind has, altogether, is still a subjective one.

If we further consider than we humans get our moral inspiration from the planet mind, this is still not the same as getting our ideas of morality from an objective source.

[The Tanager]

A moral standard would be like a written or spoken idea, manifested like the lightbulb, whereas a moral is a subjective idea. I can literally point to the one (the object) but not to the other (The subject).

So, the difference is the difference between me thinking “child abuse is evil” and me saying “child abuse is evil”?

If so, I don’t think someone writing/saying what they are thinking makes the content of the thought objective. For example, saying the Earth is round doesn’t make it round, even if it is truly round. So, to answer your earlier question, I’m not saying moral standards are objective and morals are subjective.

I think there is something else, something other than what you call morals and moral standards, that are the objective bit. Just like there is a truth to the nature of the shape of the Earth that makes it objectively true rather than our thinking or saying anything about it.

If we consider the evidence that human tribes positioned in areas on the planet which prohibited…

This is what I was talking about earlier. Our communication approaches and style just don’t click. You seemed to me to respond in a way that, at best, perhaps vaguely answers things related to my questions, but not the questions themselves or, at least, not with any clarity for me. I’m not saying it’s your fault; I just don’t track with it. And you don't seem to track with my approach. I'm not sure where you want to go from here.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #607]

So, the difference is the difference between me thinking “child abuse is evil” and me saying “child abuse is evil”?

I see. I should have worded it better.
A moral standard would be like a written idea, manifested like the lightbulb, whereas a moral is a subjective idea. I can literally point to the one (the object) but not to the other (The subject).

I don’t think someone writing/saying what they are thinking makes the content of the thought objective.

If that is what you think, since I am reading what you wrote of your thought, why do you think that your written words are not objects seen by the reader?

I am not saying words are not subjectively experienced along with everything else, but they are objects which are subjectively experienced.

to answer your earlier question, I’m not saying moral standards are objective and morals are subjective.

I am saying that moral standards are objects, and morals are subjects.

I think there is something else, something other than what you call morals and moral standards, that are the objective bit. Just like there is a truth to the nature of the shape of the Earth that makes it objectively true rather than our thinking or saying anything about it.

Are you still arguing that morals are like that too?

I would say re the earth, that it is a true object, but it requires the existence of consciousness (which is perfect subjectiveness) in order to observe the truth to the nature of the shape of it.

If we consider the evidence that human tribes positioned in areas on the planet which prohibited intercommunication in previous epochs, we can understand that the mythologies of said tribes derived from similar experiences said tribes/members of tribes had and reported.

The same applies to reports re NDEs/OOBEs et all, which are now reported through the internet, and the internet is a material symbol of a previously unknown connectivity re those similar experience had and the mythologies which came from those experiences....which is to say, the internet is a manifested example of something which has been happening naturally throughout human history, and represents a visible representation of a previously invisible reality.

As you know, I think this is fair evidence that the planet is mindful - not only because of the diverse biological lifeforms exhibiting consciousness/mindfulness, but also because of this evidence of invisible connectivity.

The dualist thinking/perception appears to cause confusion because of the idea that there are objective and subjective realities, but the confusion can be put to rest when one acknowledges that in all case of consciousness, consciousness itself is perfectly subjective and experiences objective things, subjectively.

Even if we consider that the planet being mindful, and that it is intimately connected with individual minds (human and other biological forms exhibiting mindfulness) and that this planet mind has the perception of being every mind re the biological life forms, that point of view or perception the planet mind has, altogether, is still a subjective one.

If we further consider than we humans get our moral inspiration from the planet mind, this is still not the same as getting our ideas of morality from an objective source.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Our communication approaches and style just don’t click. You seemed to me to respond in a way that, at best, perhaps vaguely answers things related to my questions, but not the questions themselves or, at least, not with any clarity for me. I’m not saying it’s your fault; I just don’t track with it. And you don't seem to track with my approach. I'm not sure where you want to go from here.

If you have a problem with my reasoning and feel capable of critiquing it, I am open to any response from you in that vein.

[The Tanager]

I see. I should have worded it better.
A moral standard would be like a written idea, manifested like the lightbulb, whereas a moral is a subjective idea. I can literally point to the one (the object) but not to the other (The subject).

Yeah, that’s pretty much how you phrased things before. It still sounds like you are saying that moral standards are morals written down.

If that is what you think, since I am reading what you wrote of your thought, why do you think that your written words are not objects seen by the reader?

I am not saying words are not subjectively experienced along with everything else, but they are objects which are subjectively experienced.

No, I think they are objects, but that doesn’t answer whether those objects are objective or subjective truths. This statement: “the Earth is round” is a written object that you see. But the content this statement points to is either an objective or subjective feature of reality. I think it’s an objective feature of reality.

Are you still arguing that morals are like that too?

I would say re the earth, that it is a true object, but it requires the existence of consciousness (which is perfect subjectiveness) in order to observe the truth to the nature of the shape of it.

I agree subjective consciousnesses are needed to observe the truth to the nature of something. But the thing they observe can be an objective or subjective feature of reality (or simply be false, of course). I’m saying morality is objective just like the shape of the Earth is, not in that one can physically point to both, but that they are objectively true because of the nature of reality, that abusing a child is wrong for those who subjectively agree it is wrong and those that subjectively disagree that it is wrong.

If you have a problem with my reasoning and feel capable of critiquing it, I am open to any response from you in that vein.

The main problem is that it seems to me that your responses aren’t direct responses to the questions I’m asking, but tangents that skip over the critiques I’ve already shared. You are free to do that, but I’m not going to keep chasing down what seem to be tangents when my initial thoughts don’t seem to be addressed.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #609]

No, I think they are objects, but that doesn’t answer whether those objects are objective or subjective truths. This statement: “the Earth is round” is a written object that you see. But the content this statement points to is either an objective or subjective feature of reality. I think it’s an objective feature of reality.

That is because the earth is an object. We agree with that, correct?

I’m saying morality is objective just like the shape of the Earth is, not in that one can physically point to both, but that they are objectively true because of the nature of reality, that abusing a child is wrong for those who subjectively agree it is wrong and those that subjectively disagree that it is wrong.

Do you also say that abusing an adult is objectively true?

Or a planet?

Or anything which is an object?

The nature of reality is the reality of nature and is harsh on biological critters. Are you seriously claiming that nature is abusive and therefore wrong? (The OP certainly is suggesting that, would you agree?)
Or have you exampled "children" specifically because they are regarded as innocents?

Have you considered that this "nature of reality" re child abuse is subject only to human moral standards which are consistent with the subjective understanding/belief that it is far better not to abuse children re the overall objective wellbeing of humanity and is not something which has always been understood that way or even exampled in nature?

Has it even been proven to be "right" not to abuse children re the objective wellbeing of humanity?

Is this abuse you mention, something specific or general? For example, is it abuse of children to subject them to any type of abuse, or are some types of abuse more acceptable than others?

It is all very well making such a statement, but what does it mean and how are you defining "abuse" in relation to your argument for objective morality being an actual thing?

Can you showcase a perfectly unabused child in order to example this objective morality you believe exists in nature?

Okay, I’m definitely not saying God is an object. Can you define “mind”? I want to make sure I’m understanding the concept you attach to that term before I agree that I view God as a Mind.

Mind is perfectly subjective.

In that, do you agree that you view God as a mind? If not, why not?