How can moral ever be objective?

I like the purple color and he likes green, so which is moral?

Moral is based value, and value is based on personal likes and interests. It can not ever be totally objective, otherwise it can't be called "moral", it'll be only a set of rules.

People following the so-called "God's moral" are in fact only following the moral of somebody else, and it doesnt come from their heart.

Who can define value anyway? Only intellectual beings like us can define value and "meaning" based on our own opinions and needs, and yes we can sometimes reach a high consensus, but we can never say moral can be objective. Otherwise, we'll all be living in machine.

Checkmate theists.

How can truth ever be objective?

I know the euclidean geometry and he knows non-euclidean one, so which is true?

Truth is based value, and value is based on personal understanding and knowledge. It can not ever be totally objective, otherwise it can't be called "truth", it'll be only a set of rules.

People following the so-called "formal logic" are in fact only following the truth of somebody else, and it doesnt come from their mind.

Who can define truth anyway? Only intellectual beings like us can define value and "meaning" based on our own opinions and needs, and yes we can sometimes reach a high consensus, but we can never say truth can be objective. Otherwise, we'll all be living in machine.

Checkmate stemfags.

You're basically explaining informally what I call the Nietzche-Stirner critique of morality. Basically that all moral systems and tables of value rest on certain axioms, and therefore have no validity unless you accept their axioms, and that there is no way to judge value-systems against each other except by recourse to a value-system. There is a potential, though no definitive solution to this problem.

>There are certain values that are implicit in consciousness itself [in other words, it is impossible for an intelligent being to NOT hold these values, so to speak of value systems outside its range becomes a nonsense]. From there all value-systems can be judged by their efficiency in fulfilling these fundamental axiomatic values implicit in the nature of mind. I don't know what values those would be though, since it seems almost any value is potentially invalidated or ignored. Maybe something like "craving" or "desire for becoming", but its all speculation.

You're a faggot who didn't even understand the question.

Arbitary qualities are not objective? Shocking!

what about axiomatic values implicit in the nature of the body?

>How can truth ever be objective?

It can only be found in lived experience.

If there are certain values it is impossible for a consciousness to not hold, then a value-system can be made that are truly universal, because all value systems are really just inefficient or ignorant means towards fulfilling those innate values.

If the axiomatic values are merely implicit in human biology or neurology, then an alteration of either would make the value-set cease to be universal.

It depends on how 'objective' you really want to be. Note that I'm not entirely sure such values exist, given the sheer variety of ideologies, but if they do, they would solve the Nietzche-Stirner critique, since all "created value" would be limited to the range set by implicit-value.

I don't see how people having opinions about morals makes it subjective - some are just wrong, maybe all are wrong, but it says nothing about morals being objective or not. Is truth objective? Some think evolution exists, some say it doesnt - so isn't this matter subjective also?

Why are sex and nudity considered immoral and as a ''seekrit''?

>ITT using the term "axiom" outside of math. and formal logic

There are no axioms outside of math and formal loigc, you fucks. None. Not in science, not in ethics. Stop shitting on the definitions of words you don't understand.

>mfw Noah got drunk and naked and cursed his grandson because of it
What a dick

You can come up with an objective theory of morality based on man's inner principles (Moral Absolutism based upon the Golden Rule and Benevolence), but it get's kind of wonky without God's intervention. Man's place in the cosmos is one of divine purpose, and not just a happenstance accident. So the situation he finds himself in, comes with its own guidelines as dictated by God.

>It can only be found in lived experience.

Fucking thank you. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with finding "objective truth". As if finding some objective "outside of the self" thing is going to tell you anything at all.

Right, it is through God's will and his own that he effects changes in the universe. Although this stance does take a leap of faith, you are rewarded almost immediately by the improved existentialistic and teleological tendencies of religious existentialism to have some incredibly beautiful truths concerning your will. Take Kierkegaard or Kant for example.

>incredibly beautiful truths concerning your will. Take Kierkegaard or Kant for example.

can you elaborate? I'm intrigued.

Kierkegaard is existentialism like Nietzsche, because it centers around the will. Except Kierkegaard's philosophy focuses on the acceptance of God as a binding between mind and body, which are both reflections of your spirit. Thy Sickness Unto Death is all that needs to be read, but it is a beautifully complex, yet profound conceptualization of the energy within yourself impacting the world around you. And, unlike Nietzsche, it doesn't fall apart in itself because it is 'grounded in God'(a phrase Kierkegaard will use).

I know Kant's philosophy is also friendly towards God as well.

It was actually his son Ham.

>acceptance of God as a binding between mind and body

Well that is an interesting way to view it. I've always been interested in Kierkegaard but have never read his work because I've heard you have to have some kind of understanding of Hegel which I don't even want to attempt.


>I know Kant's philosophy is also friendly towards God as well.

Yeah I'm pretty sure the whole deal with kant is that his system allows both science and the acceptance of some otherworldly concepts such as the belief in god and the afterlife. My basic understanding of it is that the way in which the world appears to us is defined by the categories of the mind. So that would allow a priori knowledge to be possible and also an unknowable noumena that is not in space or time and is only vaguely related to the world as we perceive it. Not too sure though, I only read like half of the critique of pure reason 2 years ago.

No, he curses Ham's son Canaan

Which God?

>(Moral Absolutism based upon the Golden Rule and Benevolence)

And how would this bridge the is-ought gap?

Your example is retarded. Morality can only be reasonably applied to actions, not preferences. It is true to we ascribe morality to motives, but that's generally in the context of more specifically examining the morality of the action itself.

An example: Homosexuality is a preference, sexual attraction to your own gender. According to Catholic morality, there is nothing wrong with this.

However, the act of fornification, intercourse outside of marriage is a sin. Since they also define marriage as between a man and a woman, any gay sex is considered a sin. That doesn't mean they consider it morally wrong to be gay, just the action is wrong

One must make a distinction between rationality and morality.
Rational actions are one that one should do, and moral actions are one ought to do.
If you are starving, and can survive by stealing from a wealthy capatalist, you should. However, one ought not to remain perfectly moral.
Ultimately these dilemmas are a matter of personal judgement, in which one uses rationality to commit sins which are not crimes(an injustice which requires retribution).

I go with the Christian God, the most rational of all. Of course I removed him from the Jewish God Yahweh for this view point.
Christ tells us to throw away old wineskins.

you're not wrong, but stop making these posts. They only encourage /humanities/.

>I go with the Christian God, the most rational of all.

This is completely baseless. There's nothing in the Bible that ever states that the Christian god is the most rational one. Also, why isn't Allah the most rational god?

>Rational actions are one that one should do, and moral actions are one ought to do.

That's the same thing

They are the same God

>That's the same thing

Nope, sometimes morals are irrational if we view our lives as purposeful. To surrender to a morality which denies our purpose is self-defeating.

Ultimately though, I require a view of mysticism within Christian guidelines to further support the rationality of morality.

You must be pure in heart to see God, so one must live as one ought to. This means living in a system where one doesn't and shouldn't sin.

So Jesus was a prophet then, and not god incarnate?

Again, none of this bridges the is-ought gap. You never explain how your arbitrarily choice of Christian guidelines for this (an is) are translated into the idea that everyone must choose Christian guidelines (an ought to). This is refuted by the fact that Muslims, Jews, and denominations of Christianity other than your own say the exact same thing, despite the fact that those guidelines differ wildly and often directly contradict one another

One must use abductive reasoning to determine that other religions are less likely.
My hypothesis is logically coherent(absent in Jewish and Muslim God), simple, and it has strong explanatory power.

>One must use abductive reasoning to determine that other religions are less likely.

Again, this is completely arbitrary. You never explain why I must do this, just that you've done this to reach your opinion.

Also, hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. Yours isn't

The christian God threatens the human soul with hellfire for disbelieve and offers paradise for moral competence. If without God, one's life is meaningingless due to death and if you value your own safety it is rational to at least entertain the idea.
One then comes to a reasoning process on the likelihood of God (inductive reasoning)
The fine-tuning theory, hard problem of consciousness, problem of abiogenesis, and the coincidental elegance of the human form amidst evolution all support the likeliness of God rather than his unlikelihood.
Viewing Human beings as central to the purpose of the universe, one would expect some kind of relationship with God.
One then uses abductive reasoning to determine which religion is the most likely. Abductive reasoning is usually used for science but it can be applied to other matters.

>The christian God threatens the human soul with hellfire for disbelieve and offers paradise for moral competence.

Again, how do you know this? Because the Bible says so? The Bible is a book, written by fallible humans. The Quran is also a book, which states that worshiping Jesus a god incarnate is shirk and will land you in hell.

>One then comes to a reasoning process on the likelihood of God (inductive reasoning)
>what is the black swan problem

>The fine-tuning theory

Life adapted to the universe, not the other way around. It also adapted very poorly, since 99% of all life that ever lived is now extinct

>hard problem of consciousness, problem of abiogenesis

These are unknowns, not pieces of knowledge. You have zero guarantee that these problems will never be resolved

>the coincidental elegance of the human form amidst evolution
>coincidental

A coincidence is defined by the lack of causal relationships. You're trying to defend the exact opposite.

>rather than his unlikelihood.

You haven't even defined what you mean by his unlikelihood

>Viewing Human beings as central to the purpose of the universe, one would expect some kind of relationship with God.

Again, why should I do this? We're back to the is-ought gap again

>Abductive reasoning is usually used for science but it can be applied to other matters.

This is the very definition of scientism. Science uses something, therefore it's infallible?

>Moral is based value, and value is based on personal likes and interests
No. Do you think serial killers or child rapists are moral just because they like what they do?

The Quran stole from Jesus minstiry so there are parallels, but the fact is is that it is rational to entertain the idea, unless one does not mind absolute torture for a mental defecit.

You make a strong claim, but fail to see the possibility of other universes. A universe which supports life is very slim in comparison to others, and it's parameters are finely tuned to support life

You don't understand the arguments very well. For the case of hard consciousness, one comes to a binding problem. How is the unity of consciousness represented by the brain? The brain activity is merely chemical reactions.

For abiogenesis, there is the problem of chirality, which appears to be an insurpassable obstacle. Based on current knowledge, one would conclude that God is involved. You can say that with time we will have better knowledge, but that requires one to be skeptical of ones current knowledge and also make an assumption that is not based in reality. It is irrational.

Synchronicity is a better word choice.

Unlikelihood would mean that the facts support the case that the universe is a random accident.

The power of abductive reasoning can not be discredited just because it is "unfavorable" to your untenable position.

>The Quran stole from Jesus minstiry so there are parallels

And Jesus got all of his background from Judaism, which is a religion that doesn't recognize him as the messiah.

>A universe which supports life is very slim in comparison to others

Which others? Other universes? Do you have another universe to compare to ours?

>You don't understand the arguments very well.

Right, because neither the problem of consciousness nor abiogenesis are arguments. They're unknowns

>Unlikelihood would mean that the facts support the case that the universe is a random accident.

And who says those are the only two choices? This is the textbook definition of a false dichotomy. Because no one has any idea how the universe came into being, there could be an infinite amount of options, many of which certainly don't involve your specific interpretation of God and might not involve any God at all. A lot of what you presented as irrefutable facts are little more than arguments from ignorance

>likes to argue that we don't know for certain therefore my position is more rationial.
Too bad that you ignore inductive and abductive reasoning. You just hold onto the assumption it is more rational to claim ignorance when that is but it is just an assumption that has no basis in actual rational thinking.

You have to use your imagination to envision other possible universes. It's a stretch, I know. :P

They're unknown from the propsition of materliasm, but if one uses God as an explanation they are no longer unknown. You just doubt the veracity of bleeding edge knowledge.

There are only two options. What other option is there?

>hypotheses are testable and falsifiable
They are revised and falsified later all the time, autist.

Is that quote from that book?

No, I just really like that picture of Buddha.

>Also its an okay book.

Morals can be objective only if there is something objective that sets those morals. And since universe itself is not objective via implication of quantum mechanics we must have Mind that is objective. Perfect Mind it must be for if it's wasn't perfect there would be mind above him that would be more perfect and act as his creator and so on until we reach perfection itself, but it's speculation and can be bypassed. So there is perfect Mind i.e. God. He is omniscient and his Wisdom is ultimate. So if he would set morals, those morals would be objective good for he is objective and know what's is best for he know every other possible option and implications of it. So if there is such God and if he would set morals those morals would be objective. Only problem with it's is that one could not know such God unless he would reveal himself for the human mind is not capable of undestunding God on it's own since finite cannot warp itself over infinite. So which relgion or moral system is God's one? Surly not polytheistic one since there can be only one supreme Mind-God in full of divinity. Surly that God cannot be unitarian since to create Morals, or universe itself, God have to have motives. And with unitarian God for let's say create universe to express love such God would be depend on his creation unless he would create universe to express self centered feeling for exemple egoism. But such God wouldn't create universe for it because such universe wouldn't be necessary for him to express self centered feeling. Moreover such God would need to triune for if he would be only two persons he woudl be selfsufficient in his dualism aka his let's say love would be exclusive and with more than tree persons his inclusiveness wouldn't be any more inclusive and God is perfect aka there are any notnecessity in him. So if you want find perfect morals, search it within relgion that have revealed, trinune God that one cannot fully comprehend.