Relative thinking

Only to a moron or social deviant.

Doesn't follow. Basically, you're saying that "morons or social deviants" are wrong because they hold to wrong principles; and yet the only reason their principles are "wrong" is because you say so.

If a person doesn't belong to either of those classes it is simple for them to understand that if they harm others, they cannot expect not to be harmed in return. Self interest directs peoples morality.

Your explanation does not account for the facts of human history. I may decide to not harm others for fear of being harmed. Conversely, I may simply raise a big, mean army that simultaneously harms others, and prevents people from harming me. History shows that the latter approach is undeniably effective. You might claim that the first is right, and apparently claim that the other is wrong; but on what objective basis can you defend such a claim?

Again: it's not enough for "an objectivist" to simply assert things, and insult those who hold different views. An objectivist is required to demonstrate, by rational thought and real evidence, the truth of his position. I have provided to you rational, objective evidence that apparently runs counter to objectivist principles. The challenge for the objectivist is to use reason, working from available evidence, to demonstrate that the objectivist position is nevertheless correct.

The problem is, as you're seeing, that a relativist can easily tie you in logical knots by countering "objective" assertions with various uncomfortable facts.

Understand, I believe in God, but I disagree that God is necessary for morality.

Not necessary for "morality" in a relative sense, perhaps. The problem comes when we try to claim that there are certain absolute moral principles, and we try to defend them without reference to God.

I have no way of knowing that you are telling the truth. This is the problem with "revelation."

And all that really means, is that "objective knowledge" is not the only kind of knowledge there is. To base a moral philosophy on only objective knowledge, to the exclusion of such non-objective ideas as beauty, honor, duty, love, or happiness (which are very urgent drivers on our moral outlook), is to engage in philosophical masturbation. Sure, it might have transitory rewards to the individuals who practice it, but it also neglects the things that matter to real people.

"God" is a pretty vague term too, from what I can tell.

So is beauty. Do you deny that beauty nevertheless is a real thing? Our inability to fully define something is not grounds for rejecting it.

My calling "objective reality" a vague term, was to point out that a philosophy built on "objective reality" requires one first to draw man-made boundaries around what is real, vice what is not. At root, it presumes that we have full a priori knowledge about the reality we're trying to define. It may be a useful approach, but it is in no sense an objective one.

Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is no supernatural enforcement of the absolutes. Lightning doesn't strike dead the heretics.

Case in point: you've simply stated that dead heretics suffer no consequences. However, you can only make such a definitive claim if you a priori assume that there are no consequences after one physically dies here on Earth. Of course, if you're correct, then by extension logic demands that the only "sin" on this Earth is that of getting caught -- those who can prosper from their crimes have done no actual wrong.

We see that with those who violate absolutes attributed to a supernatural entity too.

We see them getting away with it here on Earth. However, a supernatural entity is presumably not constrained to Earthly life, as a quick brush-up on Christian theology (with an emphasis on "judgement") would tell you.

But I've never seen anyone go to Hell. And please, try to resist the urge to say, "Oh, you will." ;^)

Must... Resist.... Urge..... ;-)

Actually, it's not up to me to consign you to hell. God may or may not decide to do so. All I'm doing is a bit of logic on His behalf.

And all that really means, is that "objective knowledge" is not the only kind of knowledge there is. To base a moral philosophy on only objective knowledge, to the exclusion of such non-objective ideas as beauty, honor, duty, love, or happiness (which are very urgent drivers on our moral outlook), is to engage in philosophical masturbation.

Objective knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. The rest is either belief, speculation, hope, or operating assumptions. Belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Once you've proven a belief to be true, it's not belief anymore, it's knowledge.

But to address your earlier remark, objectivism doesn't base its philosophy only on objective knowledge. It values abstract notions. It just refuses "knowledge" that is not really knowledge, but belief.

So is beauty. Do you deny that beauty nevertheless is a real thing? Our inability to fully define something is not grounds for rejecting it.

"Vague" and "abstract" aren't quite the same thing, though, are they?

Case in point: you've simply stated that dead heretics suffer no consequences. However, you can only make such a definitive claim if you a priori assume that there are no consequences after one physically dies here on Earth.

This approach assumes that if you can't prove something false, then you should accept that it might be true. But you can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof is not on me to prove that there is no soul, and no afterlife, but on you to prove there is. Of course, if you prove any such thing, you take it all out of the realm of "belief" and move it into the realm of "knowledge." I believe Christian theology places a high value on belief, does it not?

After all, as far as I can tell, it's too late to repent if you die and find yourself in Hell or before God. Because now, you KNOW he's real. You were supposed to repent based only on belief.

r9etb

My compliments. I have admired your ability to maintain multiple arguments.

I concur with your assertion that objective morality seems to be impossible to achieve without resorting to a metaphysical God.

Apparently the task has also been unsurmountable throughout the ages, since no notable philosopher has yet been able to define one.

My own background is in math, physics and engineering, and am no Relativist (probably a Classical Realist). However, Objective Morality can't be proven with subjective arguments, or by discrediting Relativist Morality (which I do not support).

All attempts to "prove" the existence of Objective Morality devolve into "borrowing" assertions from Subjectivity, Theology or a priori knowledge.

I consider myself fairly well-read in Philosophy, and am unaware of any philosophy that has attempted to prove Objective Morality (including Rand's Objectivism).

I would be curious to see how Objective Morality, as defined by your adversaries, would accommodate the mentally ill, the infirm, or the anti-social (i.e. those who chose not to participate in society).

If Objective Morality were so obvious and straight-forward, perhaps your challengers could (as a start) provide a few examples of how a totally Objective Morality could accommodate these people.

Clearly, the founders presumed unstated moral code, in conjunction. Nearly any significant religion (of the day) could have sufficed, with the exception of Islam.

But you can't prove a negative

I apologize in advance for what will appear to be an insult, but I have to tell you that this is one of my all-time favorite stupid statements. It is utterly meaningless, as by the very terms of the statement you have no way of knowing whether it is right or wrong.

After all, as far as I can tell, it's too late to repent if you die and find yourself in Hell or before God. Because now, you KNOW he's real. You were supposed to repent based only on belief.

LOL! When you finally come into the fold you'll understand why I find this humorous.

I apologize in advance for what will appear to be an insult, but I have to tell you that this is one of my all-time favorite stupid statements. It is utterly meaningless, as by the very terms of the statement you have no way of knowing whether it is right or wrong.

Okay, prove there are no elves.

"The Roman Empire wasn't egalitarian, and yet it was demonstrably successful."

For it's time. It wouldn't stand a chance if it had to compete with the US. Societies and cultures evolve with time. What was good enough to be on top 2000 years ago doesn't cut it today.

You made the following statement. "You can't prove a negative." I called it a stupid statement, which it is.

A bit of thought would reveal to you that it is a self-refuting statement.

Consider: If you want me to accept that "you can't prove a negative," then the burden of proof is upon you to prove to me that it is true. However, by proving your negative statement, you will have shown that you can prove a negative, thereby refuting your assertion that you cannot prove a negative.

As it happens you can, in some cases, prove a negative. It's pretty common to do so in math and logic. The basic approach is to assume the statement is true, and then demonstrate that the statement leads to contradictions.

Okay, prove there are no elves.

Tell me what an elf is, first. Or do I get to define them for myself?

For it's time. It wouldn't stand a chance if it had to compete with the US. Societies and cultures evolve with time. What was good enough to be on top 2000 years ago doesn't cut it today.

Perhaps. Let's wait and see how China turns out.

"Basically, you're saying that "morons or social deviants" are wrong because they hold to wrong principles; and yet the only reason their principles are "wrong" is because you say so."

Not I who say so. Society. Morality is what the majority say it is. It is somewhat nebulous as it changes and evolves over time. Not so long ago it was acceptable to "raise a large army and impose your will". Slavery was acceptable. It still is in certain societies and in certain religions. In western society however, neither of these actions are considered moral anymore.

As I pointed out, only social deviants and relativists, often one and the same, fail to recognize this truth. I suspect the reason for this is they want permission to do that which society deems immoral without facing the consequences.

"The problem comes when we try to claim that there are certain absolute moral principles, and we try to defend them without reference to God."

Trying to defend them with reference to God is more problematic. Who's God do you use as the standard? Who's interpretation of the various God's rules do you use? How do you prove your interpretation of your God's rules is the correct one when it is impossible to prove the existence of your God in the first place?

If there was a standard world religion that everyone agreed upon it would make things significantly simpler. As it stands, I will believe in a supreme being, but I will with hold judgment on his true nature and will until I have further information.

"Perhaps. Let's wait and see how China turns out."

China is no longer what it was 2000 years ago. It may come out on top eventually, but only if it adopts the best of the best cultures that came before it and adds something else which makes it superior.

When that happens, our children and grandchildren will no doubt be learning Mandarin and emulating Chinese culture, just as the Chinese (and the rest of the world) are learning English and emulating US culture today.

proving your negative statement, you will have shown that you can prove a negative,

That's a clever argument but it's dependent completely on linguistic elements that aren't universal. For instance, in Indo-European languages all our verbs denote positive actions, and we negate them with a separate word. But that is a separate issue from a statement being "a negative." You can see this by restating a negative sentence without negatives, such as "Prove the eternal absence of elves." Or "Only positives can be proven." Or here's another. "There are no more dinosaurs," has a negative in it, but "dinosaurs are extinct" doesn't. I hate to sound like "depends on what "is" is," but we really do have to watch out for the language determining the thought instead of the other way around.

(Okay, prove there are no elves.)

Tell me what an elf is, first. Or do I get to define them for myself?

Say, no one's ever responded that way. Let's try it both ways. You define them, and we'll see what I can make of it.

Morality is what the majority say it is.

That's a purely relativist statement -- not to mention an example of the tyranny of the masses. However, I'm pretty sure you'd agree with me that "what's right" is not necessarily the same as "what most people are willing to put up with."

Trying to defend them with reference to God is more problematic. Who's God do you use as the standard? Who's interpretation of the various God's rules do you use? How do you prove your interpretation of your God's rules is the correct one when it is impossible to prove the existence of your God in the first place?

This is an interesting angle that I hadn't really thought much about. In essence, you've placed "God" among those things that are subject to human definition. As such He's not really so much God, as he is a relativist entity. God becomes a wide variety of personal inventions, and each is probably nothing more than a convenient fiction, invented and shared by only a few. Certainly one cannot expect absolute moral principles to come from a selection of "your god," "my god," and "their gods."

But that's not the kind of god we're talking about. If absolute moral principles are to exist, they must come from the God, whose characteristics are what they are, regardless of how many different opinions people might hold about them. Peoples' opinions on right and wrong may differ, but neither God, nor His absolute moral principles (if such exist) are affected by erroneous opinions.

If there was a standard world religion that everyone agreed upon it would make things significantly simpler. As it stands, I will believe in a supreme being, but I will with hold judgment on his true nature and will until I have further information.

I've been in that position, and it's precarious. You're at a point where you know that God exists, and you need to figure out what to do about it. The first question you need to ask is: does God care about what you do? And if he does care, what are you going to do about that? When I went through this, it quickly became clear to me that "do nothing" isn't an option. My pathetic last gasp was a fleeting fantasy of trying to out-argue God to make him overlook my transgressions.... ;-)

That's a clever argument but it's dependent completely on linguistic elements that aren't universal.

Note that by tying a statement of symbolic logic to cultural language constructs, you're coming dangerously close to supporting Derrida's position on "cultural truths."

Be that as it may, it's not a "clever argument," it's taking your words as the symbolic logic statement that they supposedly represent. You said "You can't prove a negative." Stated another way, you've said "it is impossible to prove that a negative statement is true." Any way you slice it, it's at best a completely meaningless statement -- Indo-European verb forms notwithstanding.

As it happens, I know (and can objectively prove) that your statement is actually false. It is sometimes possible to prove negative statements -- I remember a particularly painful abstract linear algebra class in which the Big Final Proof was that a certain type of mathematical construct does not exist beyond Octonions. The proof essentially showed that assuming the form did exist, led to a contradiction between the necessary existence conditions.

Indeed, one of the first steps in many branches of mathematics is to prove that a solution does, or does not exist for a certain class of problems. (There is a large stock of jokes about mathematicians who say a solution exists....) By extension on can, in certain cases, prove that a solution does not exist.

Given that I have a real-world counter to your claim, I see no reason to go into elf-proofs. I am content to admit that some things are not amenable to objective proof, and other things are. I note that many of the things that make life worthwhile -- art, beauty, love, happiness, etc. -- are of the latter sort. Your insistence that "objective knowledge" is the only kind that matters, explicitly rejects these concepts, despite the fact that you know they exist. A moral position that rejects such things because one cannot "prove" they exist is, as I said before, little more than philosophical masturbation.

Now let's go to the root of this thread. Can you prove, objectively, that moral absolutes exist? I will await your answer.

"The first question you need to ask is: does God care about what you do?"

Why? It's a pointless question since the answer is unknowable. It's like asking what the meaning of life is. You can decide what the meaning of life is for you, but there is no universal answer. It's better to just go with the flow on certain questions and realize that you don't have all the answers.

When you say "You're at a point where you know that God exists, and you need to figure out what to do about it."

You assume something about me that isn't true. I don't "know that God exists", I choose to 'believe' God exists. There is a difference.

I believe in God but it doesn't bother me that I know nothing about him or his motives. It certainly doesn't bother me enough to fool myself into assuming things about him that I know nothing about.

If you are the type who absolutely must have answers to questions that are unknowable, at least be honest enough to realize that the answers you choose to believe are human constructs, that may or may not have any basis in reality.

Why? It's a pointless question since the answer is unknowable. It's like asking what the meaning of life is. You can decide what the meaning of life is for you, but there is no universal answer. It's better to just go with the flow on certain questions and realize that you don't have all the answers.

It's not at all pointless. If you acknowledge that God exists, then you're faced with a choice. Either God cares about what you do, or He doesn't care. If He does care, then clearly you've got to worry about what you do, right? And if He doesn't care, then anything goes (and relativism is valid).

You assume something about me that isn't true. I don't "know that God exists", I choose to 'believe' God exists. There is a difference.

Either God exists, or He doesn't, independent of your belief. Would you really consciously choose to believe in something that you know does not exist? I don't think you would -- you'd only believe if you had reason to think that God really does exist. And if you believe that, then the questions of behavior and morality naturally fall into place.

If you are the type who absolutely must have answers to questions that are unknowable, at least be honest enough to realize that the answers you choose to believe are human constructs, that may or may not have any basis in reality.

True enough. This brings us to the topic of "revealed knowledge." If God exists, and God is active in human history, then revelation can occur, and provides knowledge (e.g., "God exists") despite the difficulties of obtaining objective proof of His existence. Speaking for myself only, I am utterly confident that I have had experiences where God has revealed his existence to me. Whether or not I can properly describe God, much less discern His will, the fact of His existence is really not in question for me.

"And if He doesn't care, then anything goes "

oops... no, you are assuming again that belief in God is necessary to be moral. It is not. There are all sorts of rewards and incentives for living a moral life in this life. One need not wait for an afterlife to receive reward for living a moral life. Or punishment for living an immoral life for that matter.

"Either God exists, or He doesn't, independent of your belief."

True.

" Would you really consciously choose to believe in something that you know does not exist?"

No, but I do choose to believe in something (God), that I am not sure exists. If you were honest you would admit that you believe the same.

"Speaking for myself only, I am utterly confident that I have had experiences where God has revealed his existence to me. Whether or not I can properly describe God, much less discern His will, the fact of His existence is really not in question for me."

In other words you believe in a human construct of your own making. This is fine. I have no problem whatsoever with religious people. After all I believe in God, even though I doubt the teachings of the various religions are actually "revealed knowledge" as you say. I mean, they can't all be true because they contradict each other. Even followers of the same religion often have different interpretations of the same "revealed knowledge".

On another note, were you aware that researchers have actually found a "God Spot" on the brain? Just as direct stimulation of other parts of the brain can produce laughter, or pain, or sexual excitement. Stimulation of the God spot produces a profound religious experience. Pretty cool huh?

oops... no, you are assuming again that belief in God is necessary to be moral. It is not.

Lest you forget: the topic is moral relativism vs. moral absolutes. I don't deny that one can be "moral" without reference to God. The problem is that without God, one cannot escape relativist morality.

In other words you believe in a human construct of your own making. This is fine. I have no problem whatsoever with religious people.

Not of my own making.

"The problem is that without God, one cannot escape relativist morality."

argh.... I can see that you have thought about this quite a bit, and are no doubt quite proud of your little logical trap designed to ensnare atheists and agnostics into admitting that they are immoral slime. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

Unfortunately for you however, I have thought about this quite a bit too. We are not going to convince each other and since I dislike repeating myself, I am going to give it a rest.

"Not of my own making."

Who made it then?

You know, I think what we may be talking about, essentially, is the difference between proving something doesn't exist (but could), and proving something can't exist because its very definition contains contradictions that cannot be resolved. At least, that's what I'm getting from your mathematical example. Would you agree?