objective morality

[apeman]

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

 

[apeman]

As I have said, morals are ideas that exist in motive, if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind.

As I pointed out before, morality doesn't need to be external in order for one set of morals to have more truth than another set. But for whatever reason, it seems having truth isn't enough all by itself. To satisfy you, apparently morals also have to be external. So my question to you is, does God agree with you?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're correct that if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind. Well then, if external morality exists within God then it is necessary that God is a product of mind. So either God was created by a higher-level GOd who supplies plain old God with external morality, and GOd was created by a still higher-level GOD who supplies level-2 GOd with external morality, and so on ad infinitum, or else the highest-level producer of morality, be He God or GOD or GOD!! or whoever, is satisfied with truth all by itself, and doesn't need morals to also be external.

So do morals have to be external to satisfy God?

Sure we can look at societies that are successful as a measure of their moral truth knowledge, but such a truth must exist separate from them ...they need to be discovered rather than invented by them.

You say we don't need the concept of God but then again societies ruled by people that claim to be the source of truth must fail.

So who says the way to measure differences in life potential between different societies is to ask the societies' rulers? Are you so accustomed to taking the word of Somebody who says truth comes from Him, that the only alternative that occurs to you is taking the word of somebody else who says the same thing? So far, societies ruled by people who don't claim to be the source of truth and who let their subjects remain free to discover truth for themselves haven't failed, and are more successful by and large than societies that require their subjects to believe whatever God tells them. Truth is discovered by reason and observation, not dictated by authority or Authority.

If morality exists in motive ,and there are correct motives to have, then those motives must correlate to motives within the world, the world must therefore be mind dependent. I have no idea whether God agrees with me on most of my opinions and deductions... I would say that there are clear moral truths though, and that those truths exist in motive not act...therefore it is reasonable to believe a God exists...or if your prefer to drop the "God" word we exist within a mind beyond our own, rather than in a mindless object.

God need not depend on anything beyond Himself if He is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to God for them to be objective...there is no externality to God...much like to a materialist there is no externality to material.

Imo, no successful society can stand on the foundation of moral relativism, it at least has to believe it is doing the right thing...there have to be rules that the general population believes are based on truth.

 

[surreptitious57]

Morals are not comparable to mathematics. Because maths is a deductive discipline dealing in proof. And proof by default is absolute. Morals by contrast are entirely subjective and so cannot be absolute. In maths something is either objectively true or objectively false. Morals are neither as they are based on emotional reasoning which cannot be objective. So comparing morals to maths is as wrong as wrong can be. However if you want to compare them to a particular discipline then compare them to biology because organisms evolve and adapt overtime to their environment. And morals do too. But I would avoid analogies altogether even though that is a better one because at least there is some equivalence albeit in only a general sense

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The difference is that if morals exist in motive then morals exist within a form of will...illnesses do not depend upon will.

You keep using the word "morals", without explaining what you mean by that. Could you please provide 3 examples of morals? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

That aside, just as having certain motivations may be morally evil, having certain motivations may be mentally ill.

If morals can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

What do you even mean by "morals"?
Could you please list 3 morals, as examples?? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

Moreover, one could argue just as much:

A1: If mental illnesses can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

A2: If truths about elephants can exist...etc.

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Actually, you said earlier that you were talking about thoughts when you said "morals" - more precisely, you described them apparently as "self-regarding thoughts".

But regardless, I will point out that:

a. You provide no good reason to believe that just because only entities with mind can discover mathematical laws (whatever that means, I'm not sure, but regardless), then the world has at least a component that is mind-dependent.

b. Even assuming that there is some "mind-dependent component", you provide no good reason to suspect that said component would be God, or would be morally perfect, etc.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

c. You seem to be ruling out all non-mental objects, not just materialism (whatever that means).

d. Regardless, even if that claim above were true - not sure how you interpret Occam's advice or why one should follow that -, then positing an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being surely does not make things simpler. Maybe some sort of panpsychism is true - no creator -, and that's simpler. At any rate, even assuming a creator of sorts, the further assumptions that she's omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect only complicate the hypothesis greatly, and you've provided no good reason to think they're true, either, even assuming a creator of something (whatever that something is).

e. In particular, you've provided no good reason to think that a creator would be morally perfect.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

f. You keep playing with the word "morals", instead of explaining what you mean by that. Moral thoughts? Beliefs? Truths? Propositions? You seem to be equivocating all the time.

g. Elephants are not a matter of our opinion. Neither are humans. Whether a lizard is an elephant is not a matter of opinion. Whether the leader of IS is a morally evil man is not a matter of opinion, either. How is the comparison not relevant?

h. Now you say "morals" (that word again, apparently used in different and obscure ways in the context of the same argument. If you're not equivocating, please explain then what you mean by "morals", and provide a few examples of morals) "they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance."
What's the evidence, and how does this "sense" works?
Because I have a sense of right and wrong, but I don't have a sense that the world has some sort of purpose - not to mention an uncreated creator would not have been made for a purpose, so in the end, the whole world (not the arbitrary part of the world not including God) would have no purpose of its existence anyway, even if some agents have purposes for theirs. God might have purposes, but we have our own purposes without requiring God.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If morality exists in motive ,and there are correct motives to have, then those motives must correlate to motives within the world, the world must therefore be mind dependent.

While "morality exists in motive" is further obscurity, if you mean that the issue of whether bringing about some result is immoral depends on motivation, your argument above is a non-sequitur.
Else, what do you mean by "morality exists in motive"?

I have no idea whether God agrees with me on most of my opinions and deductions... I would say that there are clear moral truths though, and that those truths exist in motive not act...therefore it is reasonable to believe a God exists...or if your prefer to drop the "God" word we exist within a mind beyond our own, rather than in a mindless object.

That does not follow, unless by "those truths exist in motive" you mean something about God's motive. But if all you mean is what you get from our moral assessments - namely, that generally motivation counts when it comes to the morality of some action -, then that is obviously a non-sequitur again.

God need not depend on anything beyond Himself if He is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to God for them to be objective...there is no externality to God...much like to a materialist there is no externality to material.

What does it even mean to say that God is "beingness itself"?

And what do you mean by "morals"? Can you provide a couple of examples of morals?

 

[Bronzeage]

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

The problem you face is fairy simple. Morals do not exist in the way mathematical/geometry laws exist. The analogy does not hold. None of the postulates, axioms, of fields of mathematics have counterparts in morality. Don't even start on Set Theory. Bringing up irrelevant facts such as "...morals exist differently to elephants..." contributes nothing to your argument, since your definition of morals has been faulty from your first post.

 

[Bomb#20]

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

If morals exist in the way mathematical/geometric laws exist, then mathematical/geometric laws exist in the way morals exist. So in the event that you're correct that the existence of morals in the world implies it is necessary that the world is a product of mind, then for the same reason, the existence of mathematical/geometric laws in the world must also imply it is necessary that the world is a product of mind, correct? If so, then actually your argument doesn't have anything to do with morality per se -- you're making a purely metaphysical argument. If that's what you're doing, why don't you try just explaining why mathematical/geometric laws imply a creator, and leave morality out of it? That way your argument won't be automatically unpersuasive to all the people who don't believe morals exist in the same way mathematical/geometric laws exist.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

Huh? That sounds exactly backwards. Since it is clear that the world "makes" minds, that seems like a darn good reason for believing in mind independence: minds are made by the world so the world must have been here first.

but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

It's our ridiculously short noses that indicate that there is more to the world than elephants. The existence of morals doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Morals and purpose exist within elephants. I saw a nature documentary about a baby elephant who got trapped in a muddy pit. When he cried out for help, it wasn't only his mother who responded. The whole herd came to the rescue. It took them an hour (well, an hour of TV time) to get him free. One of the elephants went away, knocked down a tree, and dragged it back to the pit to give him something to stand on.

 

[Bomb#20]

If morality exists in motive ,and there are correct motives to have, then those motives must correlate to motives within the world, the world must therefore be mind dependent.

So you figure one motive has to correlate to a second motive in order to be correct? Well, is the second motive correct? Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't correct, then what you're saying is that the first motive is correct because it correlates to an incorrect motive. That makes no sense. But if the second motive is correct, then according to your theory of motive correctness, the second motive must correlate to a third motive, and so on in an infinite regress of motives.

So no, if there are correct motives to have, then it must be possible for a motive to be correct all by itself.

I have no idea whether God agrees with me on most of my opinions and deductions...

If He agrees with you then either (a) there's a higher god above God, or else (b) God has no objective morals, or else (c) God is wrong. If He disagrees with you then either (c) God is wrong or else (d) you're wrong. Which option would you like us to pick?

I would say that there are clear moral truths though, and that those truths exist in motive not act...therefore it is reasonable to believe a God exists...or if your prefer to drop the "God" word we exist within a mind beyond our own, rather than in a mindless object.

But you're only drawing that conclusion because you're changing the rules in mid-argument. When you're talking about a human you say moral truths require a mind beyond the mind of the guy with morals; but then when you get to God you say they don't. Changing the rules in mid-argument is not reasonable.

God need not depend on anything beyond Himself if He is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to God for them to be objective...there is no externality to God...much like to a materialist there is no externality to material.

The universe need not depend on anything beyond itself if it is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to the universe for them to be objective...there is no externality to the universe. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Imo, no successful society can stand on the foundation of moral relativism, it at least has to believe it is doing the right thing...there have to be rules that the general population believes are based on truth.

That's like saying no successful society can stand on the foundation of believing in Heaven. True, but so what? Societies don't disintegrate just because too many people believe in Heaven. It's not as though they actually all stop watching out for buses when they cross the street, in the hope that they'll get run over and ascend to Paradise. They preach Heaven and go right on acting like this life is the one they get.

Society isn't founded on moral relativism; moral relativism is just another goofy thing that a lot of people happen to believe in, no different from a blissful afterlife. It's not as though they actually all act like they believe in it. They preach moral relativism and go right on acting like they think their rules are based on truth.

 

[apeman]

Morals are not comparable to mathematics. Because maths is a deductive discipline dealing in proof. And proof by default is absolute. Morals by contrast are entirely subjective and so cannot be absolute. In maths something is either objectively true or objectively false. Morals are neither as they are based on emotional reasoning which cannot be objective. So comparing morals to maths is as wrong as wrong can be. However if you want to compare them to a particular discipline then compare them to biology because organisms evolve and adapt overtime to their environment. And morals do too. But I would avoid analogies altogether even though that is a better one because at least there is some equivalence albeit in only a general sense

Morals (objective ones ) are comparable to maths because if they exist they exist in motive ....which is mind dependent ...like maths.

Accidentally hitting a baby on the head with a hammer is completely different to deliberately aiming for it...the morals of the situation are situated within the will of the hammer holder, not within the act itself. It is always morally wrong to deliberately hit a baby on the head with a hammer for fun...that is an objective moral fact.

We may adapt our moral beliefs, but that in no way proves that hitting a baby on the head with a hammer for fun can ever be morally good.

Basically , anything that devalues human life is bad, anything that increases it is good.

 

[apeman]

You keep using the word "morals", without explaining what you mean by that. Could you please provide 3 examples of morals? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

That aside, just as having certain motivations may be morally evil, having certain motivations may be mentally ill.

If morals can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

What do you even mean by "morals"?
Could you please list 3 morals, as examples?? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

Moreover, one could argue just as much:

A1: If mental illnesses can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

A2: If truths about elephants can exist...etc.

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Actually, you said earlier that you were talking about thoughts when you said "morals" - more precisely, you described them apparently as "self-regarding thoughts".

But regardless, I will point out that:

a. You provide no good reason to believe that just because only entities with mind can discover mathematical laws (whatever that means, I'm not sure, but regardless), then the world has at least a component that is mind-dependent.

b. Even assuming that there is some "mind-dependent component", you provide no good reason to suspect that said component would be God, or would be morally perfect, etc.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

c. You seem to be ruling out all non-mental objects, not just materialism (whatever that means).

d. Regardless, even if that claim above were true - not sure how you interpret Occam's advice or why one should follow that -, then positing an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being surely does not make things simpler. Maybe some sort of panpsychism is true - no creator -, and that's simpler. At any rate, even assuming a creator of sorts, the further assumptions that she's omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect only complicate the hypothesis greatly, and you've provided no good reason to think they're true, either, even assuming a creator of something (whatever that something is).

e. In particular, you've provided no good reason to think that a creator would be morally perfect.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

f. You keep playing with the word "morals", instead of explaining what you mean by that. Moral thoughts? Beliefs? Truths? Propositions? You seem to be equivocating all the time.

g. Elephants are not a matter of our opinion. Neither are humans. Whether a lizard is an elephant is not a matter of opinion. Whether the leader of IS is a morally evil man is not a matter of opinion, either. How is the comparison not relevant?

h. Now you say "morals" (that word again, apparently used in different and obscure ways in the context of the same argument. If you're not equivocating, please explain then what you mean by "morals", and provide a few examples of morals) "they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance."
What's the evidence, and how does this "sense" works?
Because I have a sense of right and wrong, but I don't have a sense that the world has some sort of purpose - not to mention an uncreated creator would not have been made for a purpose, so in the end, the whole world (not the arbitrary part of the world not including God) would have no purpose of its existence anyway, even if some agents have purposes for theirs. God might have purposes, but we have our own purposes without requiring God.

I use the word "morals" to describe how we should desire to behave.

 

[apeman]

While "morality exists in motive" is further obscurity, if you mean that the issue of whether bringing about some result is immoral depends on motivation, your argument above is a non-sequitur.
Else, what do you mean by "morality exists in motive"?

I have no idea whether God agrees with me on most of my opinions and deductions... I would say that there are clear moral truths though, and that those truths exist in motive not act...therefore it is reasonable to believe a God exists...or if your prefer to drop the "God" word we exist within a mind beyond our own, rather than in a mindless object.

That does not follow, unless by "those truths exist in motive" you mean something about God's motive. But if all you mean is what you get from our moral assessments - namely, that generally motivation counts when it comes to the morality of some action -, then that is obviously a non-sequitur again.

God need not depend on anything beyond Himself if He is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to God for them to be objective...there is no externality to God...much like to a materialist there is no externality to material.

What does it even mean to say that God is "beingness itself"?

And what do you mean by "morals"? Can you provide a couple of examples of morals?

The fact that morality depends on motivation is proof that it is a mind dependent object, not part of what people consider to be the physical world . There are correct morals...like the one about not hitting babies with hammers for fun. If morals are objective truth then those morals are part of this world, they exist as maths exists, they are not just opinion.

God is beingness itself....

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

 

[apeman]

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

The problem you face is fairy simple. Morals do not exist in the way mathematical/geometry laws exist. The analogy does not hold. None of the postulates, axioms, of fields of mathematics have counterparts in morality. Don't even start on Set Theory. Bringing up irrelevant facts such as "...morals exist differently to elephants..." contributes nothing to your argument, since your definition of morals has been faulty from your first post.

Morals are all about applying value to the world, and other beings in particular...kinda like maths.

 

[apeman]

If morals exist in the way mathematical/geometric laws exist, then mathematical/geometric laws exist in the way morals exist. So in the event that you're correct that the existence of morals in the world implies it is necessary that the world is a product of mind, then for the same reason, the existence of mathematical/geometric laws in the world must also imply it is necessary that the world is a product of mind, correct? If so, then actually your argument doesn't have anything to do with morality per se -- you're making a purely metaphysical argument. If that's what you're doing, why don't you try just explaining why mathematical/geometric laws imply a creator, and leave morality out of it? That way your argument won't be automatically unpersuasive to all the people who don't believe morals exist in the same way mathematical/geometric laws exist.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

Huh? That sounds exactly backwards. Since it is clear that the world "makes" minds, that seems like a darn good reason for believing in mind independence: minds are made by the world so the world must have been here first.

but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

It's our ridiculously short noses that indicate that there is more to the world than elephants. The existence of morals doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Morals and purpose exist within elephants. I saw a nature documentary about a baby elephant who got trapped in a muddy pit. When he cried out for help, it wasn't only his mother who responded. The whole herd came to the rescue. It took them an hour (well, an hour of TV time) to get him free. One of the elephants went away, knocked down a tree, and dragged it back to the pit to give him something to stand on.

This thread was about the objectivity of morals (or not), I wasn't here to argue for God so much as argue for this world being at least partially mind dependent. Obviously morality is as important to us as maths, and exists in the same way. Maths and morals are about values, about order and rules.

You automatically assume the world is mind independent then necessarily believe the world makes minds mindlessly . It is simpler to say that we exist as thought processes within a greater thought process...like Chrome can exist within windows...a sub set of a greater set. Occam's razor inclines me to the idea that God is a simplification over materialism and therefore a superior idea.

 

[apeman]

So you figure one motive has to correlate to a second motive in order to be correct? Well, is the second motive correct? Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't correct, then what you're saying is that the first motive is correct because it correlates to an incorrect motive. That makes no sense. But if the second motive is correct, then according to your theory of motive correctness, the second motive must correlate to a third motive, and so on in an infinite regress of motives.

So no, if there are correct motives to have, then it must be possible for a motive to be correct all by itself.

I have no idea whether God agrees with me on most of my opinions and deductions...

If He agrees with you then either (a) there's a higher god above God, or else (b) God has no objective morals, or else (c) God is wrong. If He disagrees with you then either (c) God is wrong or else (d) you're wrong. Which option would you like us to pick?

I would say that there are clear moral truths though, and that those truths exist in motive not act...therefore it is reasonable to believe a God exists...or if your prefer to drop the "God" word we exist within a mind beyond our own, rather than in a mindless object.

But you're only drawing that conclusion because you're changing the rules in mid-argument. When you're talking about a human you say moral truths require a mind beyond the mind of the guy with morals; but then when you get to God you say they don't. Changing the rules in mid-argument is not reasonable.

God need not depend on anything beyond Himself if He is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to God for them to be objective...there is no externality to God...much like to a materialist there is no externality to material.

The universe need not depend on anything beyond itself if it is beingness itself. Morals do not have to be external to the universe for them to be objective...there is no externality to the universe. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Imo, no successful society can stand on the foundation of moral relativism, it at least has to believe it is doing the right thing...there have to be rules that the general population believes are based on truth.

That's like saying no successful society can stand on the foundation of believing in Heaven. True, but so what? Societies don't disintegrate just because too many people believe in Heaven. It's not as though they actually all stop watching out for buses when they cross the street, in the hope that they'll get run over and ascend to Paradise. They preach Heaven and go right on acting like this life is the one they get.

Society isn't founded on moral relativism; moral relativism is just another goofy thing that a lot of people happen to believe in, no different from a blissful afterlife. It's not as though they actually all act like they believe in it. They preach moral relativism and go right on acting like they think their rules are based on truth.

I've run out of time, but moral relativism is false...all sane minds know it is wrong to hit a baby on the head with a hammer for fun. Good morals are all about raising human worth (or other beings perhaps) , so raising human worth must be a concept built into the world...

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem you face is fairy simple. Morals do not exist in the way mathematical/geometry laws exist. The analogy does not hold. None of the postulates, axioms, of fields of mathematics have counterparts in morality. Don't even start on Set Theory. Bringing up irrelevant facts such as "...morals exist differently to elephants..." contributes nothing to your argument, since your definition of morals has been faulty from your first post.

Morals are all about applying value to the world, and other beings in particular...kinda like maths.

Your analogy fails again, because you persist in using an incorrect definition of morals. I can understand why you want to use mathematics as a model. Math has rigid rules of relationships, which very tempting, but not applicable to your argument.

As I said in an earlier post, there are no postulates, axioms, or fields of morality, which are counterparts to those of mathematics. If you believe there is such a thing, please list them.

In the meantime, math can be used to determine the age of a person. An infant maybe only a fraction of a year, while a much older person could be 80 years, plus a fraction. How does morality determine which one is more valuable?

 

[fromderinside]

Morals are all about applying value to the world, and other beings in particular...kinda like maths.

Your analogy fails again, because you persist in using an incorrect definition of morals. I can understand why you want to use mathematics as a model. Math has rigid rules of relationships, which very tempting, but not applicable to your argument.

As I said in an earlier post, there are no postulates, axioms, or fields of morality, which are counterparts to those of mathematics. If you believe there is such a thing, please list them.

In the meantime, math can be used to determine the age of a person. An infant maybe only a fraction of a year, while a much older person could be 80 years, plus a fraction. How does morality determine which one is more valuable?

Yes morality is with which we choose to operate. It is not mathematical at its source, the individual, or at its aggregate one's culture, but it is computable in the abstract to ideals in every dimension. A relevant model would be human signal detection theory re physical ideals. So keep it up apeman.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The fact that morality depends on motivation is proof that it is a mind dependent object, not part of what people consider to be the physical world .

You say that the fact that "morality" depends on motivation is proof that "it" (i.e., morality) is a mind-independent object. But what do you mean by "morality" in that5 context?

What depends [partially] on motivation is whether an action is morally good, morally wrong or morally neutral, and to what extend it's immoral, or morally good in case it is. In other words, the moral properties of a behavior depend partially on motivation.

So, it seems that what you're saying that the fact that the moral properties of a behavior depend [partially] on motivation is proof that the moral properties of a behavior are a mind dependent object, and allegedly not part of what people consider the "physical world".

So, you're apparently saying that moral properties are mind-dependent. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

In any case, how does it follow that it's not part of the physical world. What do you mean by "physical"?

For that matter, one might point out that whether a certain behavior is mentally sick depends partly on motivation (at least, in plenty of cases), and then from that conclude that the property of being a mentally sick behavior is not part of the physical world, etc.

I don't know what you mean by "physical", but that is no good reason to believe God exists.

There are correct morals...like the one about not hitting babies with hammers for fun.

I asked you for examples of "morals", in order to figure out what you mean, but you only gave me the example of the "moral" that is "about not hitting babies with hammers for fun". I would appreciate if you could please write down a single moral, instead of tell me what the moral is "about".

Still, going by that, it seems that by "morals" you may be talking about moral statements, like "A human adult ought not to deliberately hit babies with hammers for fun" (i.e., knowing they're babies, etc.)?
If so, okay, but there are also correct statements about mental illness. There is no good reason to suspect theism follows.
If by "morals" you don't mean moral statements, what do you mean by "morals".

If morals are objective truth then those morals are part of this world, they exist as maths exists, they are not just opinion.

1. How does "those morals are part of this world" follow from "morals are objective truths"?
I'd like to see an argument, or an explanation about what you mean by "objective". Remember that you said or implied above that moral properties are mind-dependent (either that, or you were being extremely obscure again). Not that I object to that, but please keep in mind your own terminology and claims.


2. How does "they exist as math exists" follow from "morals are objective truths"?
I'd like to see an argument, or an explanation about what you mean by "objective". Remember that you said or implied above that moral properties are mind-dependent. Not that I object to that, but please keep in mind your own terminology and claims.

3. Okay, so whether a behavior is immoral, etc., is not a matter of opinion. Neither is whether a behavior is ill (or rather, a person who behaves in a certain manner is mentally ill, or immoral depending on the case). The analogy still holds.

4. How would any of that help your case for theism?

God is beingness itself....

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

So, Thomism then?

Let's see:

According to Aquinas, all creatures are fundementally composed of essence and existence.

Why should one believe that?
It smealls like a category error, but even if it's not, why should one believe it?

Since every creature is a composition of essence and esse, there must be a First Cause of this composition that is Himself uncomposed.

How does that follow?

In God there is no distinction between What He is, i.e. His Essence, and the act wherby He is.

Looks like a category error, but even if it's not, why should one believe such being exists?
Moreover, if he existed, why should one believe he even cares about morality?

Furthermore, why should anyone believe that the existence of such being is a necessary condition for objective morality?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You keep using the word "morals", without explaining what you mean by that. Could you please provide 3 examples of morals? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

That aside, just as having certain motivations may be morally evil, having certain motivations may be mentally ill.


What do you even mean by "morals"?
Could you please list 3 morals, as examples?? Is it moral statements, truths, thoughts, beliefs, properties, or what?

Moreover, one could argue just as much:

A1: If mental illnesses can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.

A2: If truths about elephants can exist...etc.

As I have just intimated (in the previous post) morals exist in the way mathematical /geometric laws exist, they are in the world around us and are only discoverable by mind. That implies that the world around us has at least a component that is mind dependent.

Actually, you said earlier that you were talking about thoughts when you said "morals" - more precisely, you described them apparently as "self-regarding thoughts".

But regardless, I will point out that:

a. You provide no good reason to believe that just because only entities with mind can discover mathematical laws (whatever that means, I'm not sure, but regardless), then the world has at least a component that is mind-dependent.

b. Even assuming that there is some "mind-dependent component", you provide no good reason to suspect that said component would be God, or would be morally perfect, etc.

Obviously since it is clear that the world "makes" minds and objects that are only discoverable by minds, it could well be the case that the whole of existence is mind dependent.If we are to follow Occam's advice it follows that we should discard materialism until we have good reason for believing in mind independence.

c. You seem to be ruling out all non-mental objects, not just materialism (whatever that means).

d. Regardless, even if that claim above were true - not sure how you interpret Occam's advice or why one should follow that -, then positing an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being surely does not make things simpler. Maybe some sort of panpsychism is true - no creator -, and that's simpler. At any rate, even assuming a creator of sorts, the further assumptions that she's omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect only complicate the hypothesis greatly, and you've provided no good reason to think they're true, either, even assuming a creator of something (whatever that something is).

e. In particular, you've provided no good reason to think that a creator would be morally perfect.

If true morals exist then it is necessary that they exist beyond our opinion .Elephants are not a matter of our opinion, and yes , if God exists then they are also mind dependent...but morals exist differently to elephants ...they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance.

f. You keep playing with the word "morals", instead of explaining what you mean by that. Moral thoughts? Beliefs? Truths? Propositions? You seem to be equivocating all the time.

g. Elephants are not a matter of our opinion. Neither are humans. Whether a lizard is an elephant is not a matter of opinion. Whether the leader of IS is a morally evil man is not a matter of opinion, either. How is the comparison not relevant?

h. Now you say "morals" (that word again, apparently used in different and obscure ways in the context of the same argument. If you're not equivocating, please explain then what you mean by "morals", and provide a few examples of morals) "they are something we sense in ourselves that have the capacity to at least indicate that there is more to the world than elephants and other such creatures...such as purpose for instance."
What's the evidence, and how does this "sense" works?
Because I have a sense of right and wrong, but I don't have a sense that the world has some sort of purpose - not to mention an uncreated creator would not have been made for a purpose, so in the end, the whole world (not the arbitrary part of the world not including God) would have no purpose of its existence anyway, even if some agents have purposes for theirs. God might have purposes, but we have our own purposes without requiring God.

I use the word "morals" to describe how we should desire to behave.

1. I still do not know what you mean by "morals". You tell me that you use it to describe how we should desire to behave, but that is neither a definition nor an example of a moral. I read "morals", and I'm still struggling to ascertain whether I should read "moral properties", "moral statements", "moral beliefs", "moral truths", or what. So, I would ask again. Could you please list 3 morals, as examples? If 3 is too much, please just state one single moral. That would help me figure out (well, maybe) what you mean. So far, my best theory (see my immediately previous post is that you mean "moral statements"): But why don't you help me out by letting me know what you mean?

2. What about the rest of my post?

 

[dx713]

Morals are all about applying value to the world, and other beings in particular...kinda like maths.

Your analogy fails again, because you persist in using an incorrect definition of morals. I can understand why you want to use mathematics as a model. Math has rigid rules of relationships, which very tempting, but not applicable to your argument.

As I said in an earlier post, there are no postulates, axioms, or fields of morality, which are counterparts to those of mathematics. If you believe there is such a thing, please list them.

In the meantime, math can be used to determine the age of a person. An infant maybe only a fraction of a year, while a much older person could be 80 years, plus a fraction. How does morality determine which one is more valuable?

Even if the analogy was applicable:

• Maths assign no value on axioms. Each set of axioms gives its own mathematical system. It's up to the mathematician to decide which mathematics is the most useful to solve the problem at hand.
• It has been proven that no consistent mathematical system is complete, i.e. can answer all propositions without becoming contradictory.

So, if logic is like maths, it means having to choose the premises and still having undecided questions (or a contradictory morality in which each question can have different answers depending how you look at it).
So much for the argument pointing to an objective morality...

 

[apeman]

Morals are all about applying value to the world, and other beings in particular...kinda like maths.

Your analogy fails again, because you persist in using an incorrect definition of morals. I can understand why you want to use mathematics as a model. Math has rigid rules of relationships, which very tempting, but not applicable to your argument.

As I said in an earlier post, there are no postulates, axioms, or fields of morality, which are counterparts to those of mathematics. If you believe there is such a thing, please list them.

In the meantime, math can be used to determine the age of a person. An infant maybe only a fraction of a year, while a much older person could be 80 years, plus a fraction. How does morality determine which one is more valuable?

I don't think that age necessarily has anything to do with ones value. I think the moral value of an act is about whether that act (or thought) has the capacity to raise human value. If an act (or thought) raises human value that is good, if it lowers human value that is bad. So from this we can see that (for instance) ideologies that devalue individual and group worth are immoral (evil).

We learn over time which acts/thoughts should be valued as good or bad...we discover those relationships like (for instance) we discovered the value of Pi.