Omniscience and free will

[jlay]

I find it interesting that when I put forth the GR as the basis for my "moral compass" (in several other threads), it was universally derided as "my preference", "subjective", etc. NOW it is has apparently been adopted as God's "Objective Morality" AND "proof" that God exists.

And this is exactly the point that is being addressed by myself and Jac. We are not deriding the GR. We are challenging your understanding of it, and the implications to your beleif system if it is in fact objective. We are playing devil's advocate here. I thought that was pretty clear. Wayne, you are the one saying that the GR is "objective," while at the same time saying morality is only subjective. If it is objective, then what is the source of that objectivity?

Let's look at some simple definitions of objective.
-Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
-of, relating to, or being anobject, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

And I think it is a product of human intellect.

That's fine. But this does not jive with it being objective. If this is the case, then it is an idea, a preference. Who is to say that the GR is anymore right or wrong than say, kill or be killed. You have shown that you revere the GR. You have shown how it is applied. You have claimed it is objective. But you have failed to demonstrate how it is objective in and of itself.

I've demonstrated how I know it is wrong, it's your turn.

But you haven't. I understand what you are saying. But have you really demonstrated it is WRONG? If morality is subjective then is anything really "wrong." You have demonstrated that murder is in violation of your personal and societal preferences derided from human intellect. You interpret this as "wrong." Jac has used the ice cream example to demonstrate a simple truth. I don't care to rehash that. You either accpet it or reject it. I'll try to give some other examples. What I find is that you want to believe there really is a "right" and "wrong." Thus an objective truth. But, you don't want to accept the implications of objective morality as evidence of God. Also, you don't seem real keen on accepting the implications of there only being subjective morality.

When we look at 2+2=5, we can know it is wrong. Why? Because there is objective truth that we can rely on, that exists apart from the ideas of man. I appreciate the fact that you know murder is wrong. But what you fail to recognize is you are proving my position, not your own. You are saying there is an objective truth that you can base that on, but at the same time denying objective morality exist. That is impossible to argue against because it isn't reasonable. You say you want to see how it works, but you are actually demonstrating it yourself by applying the GR. You just refuse to acknowledge the correct source of the GR.

If two animals violently compete for mating rights have they done anything wrong? Even if one of them dies, NO. But if this occurs between humans it is deemed wrong. If human morals are only the by-product of these same animal instincts, evolved, then how can we declare anything to be objectively "wrong." Take lying lying for example. Someone lies to you. You say, they are wrong. Why? Because they violated your personal belief system. However, their own personal belief system says it is OK to lie. They don't agree with your preference. They haven't broken any law, and the lie benefitted their position. You say, "do unto others......" They say, "that is your view, not mine." If morality is not objective, and if you contend that they are wrong, then you are forcing your morality on them.

Based on the world today, we can see that people are all too willing to lie, and that many do not agree with your GR. In fact the US and world economy is in collapse because people don't agree with the GR.

Also regarding genetics and environment, we can't say that rape is objectively wrong. Why? Well I could easily argue that man's desire to propogate the species is equally as valuable as someone's desire to protect their personal space. Now that statement crawls all over my mind, and I am sure it does yours as well. Without objective morality, we are forced to swallow this bitter pill.

[waynepii]

I find it interesting that when I put forth the GR as the basis for my "moral compass" (in several other threads), it was universally derided as "my preference", "subjective", etc. NOW it is has apparently been adopted as God's "Objective Morality" AND "proof" that God exists.

And this is exactly the point that is being addressed by myself and Jac. We are not deriding the GR. We are challenging your understanding of it, and the implications to your beleif system if it is in fact objective. We are playing devil's advocate here. I thought that was pretty clear. Wayne, you are the one saying that the GR is "objective," while at the same time saying morality is only subjective. If it is objective, then what is the source of that objectivity?

I am saying the codes of conduct that societies (including religions) impose on their members ARE subjective (Edited - some text was inadvertently omitted from the original post, the missing text added to complete the sentence. The added text is in RED). They can and should be validated against the GR in order to make them more just if necessary.

Let's look at some simple definitions of objective.
-Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
-of, relating to, or being anobject, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

And which of those does the GR fail to meet?
My repeated questions about "Objective Morality" are related to the " ... perceptible by all observers" bit (emphasis mine).

And I think it is a product of human intellect.

That's fine. But this does not jive with it being objective. If this is the case, then it is an idea, a preference. Who is to say that the GR is anymore right or wrong than say, kill or be killed. You have shown that you revere the GR. You have shown how it is applied. You have claimed it is objective. But you have failed to demonstrate how it is objective in and of itself.

You supplied a definition of "objective" which the GR seems to satisfy.

I've demonstrated how I know it is wrong, it's your turn.

But you haven't. I understand what you are saying. But have you really demonstrated it is WRONG? If morality is subjective then is anything really "wrong." You have demonstrated that murder is in violation of your personal and societal preferences derided from human intellect. You interpret this as "wrong." Jac has used the ice cream example to demonstrate a simple truth. I don't care to rehash that. You either accpet it or reject it.

I have shown that murder is in violation of the GR. My preferences have nothing to do with it.

I'll try to give some other examples. What I find is that you want to believe there really is a "right" and "wrong."

It IS possible to define "right" and "wrong" using the GR.

Thus an objective truth.

Yes, the GR.

But, you don't want to accept the implications of objective morality as evidence of God.

I see no such implication.

Also, you don't seem real keen on accepting the implications of there only being subjective morality.

Codes of conduct have been shifting pretty much continuously since the start of recorded history, and undoubtedly long before recorded history. The general trend in most societies has been toward a more just code (ie more in line with the GR).

When we look at 2+2=5, we can know it is wrong. Why? Because there is objective truth that we can rely on, that exists apart from the ideas of man. I appreciate the fact that you know murder is wrong. But what you fail to recognize is you are proving my position, not your own. You are saying there is an objective truth that you can base that on, but at the same time denying objective morality exist. That is impossible to argue against because it isn't reasonable. You say you want to see how it works, but you are actually demonstrating it yourself by applying the GR. You just refuse to acknowledge the correct source of the GR.

So "Objective Morality" IS the GR after all? If not, why not give me an example of how you "know" murder is wrong using "Objective Morality"?

If two animals violently compete for mating rights have they done anything wrong? Even if one of them dies, NO. But if this occurs between humans it is deemed wrong. If human morals are only the by-product of these same animal instincts, evolved, then how can we declare anything to be objectively "wrong." Take lying lying for example. Someone lies to you. You say, they are wrong. Why? Because they violated your personal belief system. However, their own personal belief system says it is OK to lie. They don't agree with your preference. They haven't broken any law, and the lie benefitted their position. You say, "do unto others......" They say, "that is your view, not mine." If morality is not objective, and if you contend that they are wrong, then you are forcing your morality on them.

If the "someone" would consider the same (or equivalent) lie about them "wrong", then their telling that lie about me is likewise "wrong". Whether they choose to use the GR or not doesn't change the wrongness of the lie. What would "Objective Morality" say about the lie?

If someone claims that "Objective Morality" condones killing certain people, would killing said certain people be "wrong"? Who determines what the "Objective Morality" really says?

Based on the world today, we can see that people are all too willing to lie, and that many do not agree with your GR. In fact the US and world economy is in collapse because people don't agree with the GR.

The value and accuracy of the GR does not depend on whether people use it.

Also regarding genetics and environment, we can't say that rape is objectively wrong. Why? Well I could easily argue that man's desire to propogate the species is equally as valuable as someone's desire to protect their personal space. Now that statement crawls all over my mind, and I am sure it does yours as well. Without objective morality, we are forced to swallow this bitter pill.

Why the switch of topic to genetics and environment? What does the GR tell you about forcible sex? What does "Objective Morality" say about it?

[Proinsias]

If there were no humans around, 2+2 would still equal four.

Proving that is going to be rather difficult with humans around, and even tougher when there are no humans around.

Only if one is being stubborn beyond galatic proportions. But thanks for sharing. One doesn't have to prove something that is objective for it to be true. It is in and of itself. Man discovered that 2+2=4. It didn't suddenly become reality when he discovered it. No more than people were floating around aimlessly until Newton discovered the idea of gravity. Gravity isn't a reality because people, cultures and the world decide it to be. We've only been aware of radioactivity for a short period of time. Is the existence of radioactivity objective, or did it manifest when mankind discovered it and defined it??

I really don't think I'm being stubborn beyond galactic proportions. It's not exactly a new question to ask if mathematics is discovered or created by human beings, and to my knowledge has never been resolved.

One is certainly free to hold the opinion that mathematics is being discovered and not created but much like morality it is an opinion, and a tough one to prove either way.

Gravity is a way to describe reality, and since Einstein it has been a rather problematic one at that. Einstein himself is rather famous for the quote:"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

I only mention this as the discussion on morality possibly being objective seems to be using basic mathematics as an example of something objective and I really don't think this is solid ground at all. Of the few books I've read on mathematics for the layman it's something that is generally mentioned early on as a sort of age old question - discovery vs creation.

[Proinsias]

Also regarding genetics and environment, we can't say that rape is objectively wrong. Why? Well I could easily argue that man's desire to propogate the species is equally as valuable as someone's desire to protect their personal space. Now that statement crawls all over my mind, and I am sure it does yours as well. Without objective morality, we are forced to swallow this bitter pill.

No we're not. If one does not believe in objective morality one is not forced to swallow a poor argument.

If someone declares that rape is objectively right, those who believe in objective morality are not forced to swallow that bitter pill.

[Jac3510]

I stepped away from this thread for a few days trying to figure out a better way to explain the problem. Skimming through some of the recent discussions, it appears that there is something fundamental that makes sense to us, but Wayne is simply not seeing. I think I've figured it out.

1. Wayne sees society's declarations of right and wrong as objective. Indeed, they are. It is an objective fact that murder is "wrong". So, for him, this can serve as an "objective morality," so he doesn't see where we keep insisting that morality cannot be objective if God does not exist.

2. Wayne believes that morality is subjective in the sense that humans--individually and collectively--decide for themselves what is right and wrong. When a collection of people make that decision, their collection subjective idea becomes an objective fact. Thus, it seems that morality can be objective and subjective at the same time.

To this, we need to point out that he has made two basic mistakes:

1. It is certainly an objective fact that societies (and individuals) have certain beliefs. Those beliefs are certainly objective insofar as others examine them. It is, for example, an objective fact that Wayne believes that morality is subjective. It is NOT true, however, that morality itself is therefore objective. In other words, the belief about morality is objective. That says nothing about morality itself. As we have been repeatedly pointing out, morality itself cannot, by definition, be objective if it is rooted in the human mind.

2. Wayne is using the word "wrong" entirely too loosely. Consider the following two sentences:

1. "Murder is wrong"
2. "I do not like murder."

What is the subject of the first sentence? Murder.
What is the subject of the second sentence? Me.

The first is making an objective claim. The second is making a subjective claim. The first is predicating something about murder. The second is predicating something about me. What we are trying to get Wayne to see is that if morality is subjective, when he says "Murder is wrong" he is only saying something about himself, not about murder itself. He is speaking in the second sense. He cannot even say, "I think murder is wrong" because "wrong" is still being predicated to "murder."

Now, this is where the fundamental problem comes in: if something is "wrong," in the moral sense of the word, we are saying it "ought not to be." If we say "why should it not be?" then the answer is "because it is X." X can be filled with any number of things. Because it is . . .

bad for society
mean
inconsistent with the Golden Rule
a good way to land in jail
etc.

We would point out that each of these, however, are based on a personal value. If things are ought not be because they are bad for society, then the assumption is what is good for society ought to be; thus, societal good becomes the basic value. If not that, then kindness, the Golden Rule, self-preservation, or some other value takes it places.

The problem here is that each of these values are subjective. They are personal preferences. We cannot say that any of these values are wrong (or right) because we would end up with a circular argument. If I say, "No, Wayne. I don't think that what is good for society is an important value," and he replies, "Well it is wrong to not care about society," I can simply reply, "Why?" He cannot say, "It is wrong to not care about society because the most important value is the good of society." Put your X whatever you want there. It all becomes circular, subjective preference.

Against this, what we mean when we say it is wrong is another X entirely: we mean this. It is wrong because . . .

it is evil.

Here, "evil" is something predicated to the nature of the act itself. It is not a value. As such, it cannot be circular. This means that some things are, in and of themselves, good and others are, in and of themselves, evil. It is this "in and of themselves" that we are focusing on when we say the word "objective," which Wayne seems to be missing because he is looking at "objective" in the sense described above.

In light of this, I suggest we add the word "intrinsic." Things cannot be intrinsically wrong in any objective sense if no God exists. If God does not exist, Wayne cannot say that murder is wrong. All he is capable of saying is:

"Murder is an act that violates my basic value system, and therefore, I say it ought not be practiced by me or anyone who holds to my value system."

Of course, this is a far cry from saying that murder is really wrong, because if I don't hold to his value system, then I simply agree with his statement because it has no bearing on me. I can feel free to murder without it being wrong at all!

But Wayne really DOES believe that murder is wrong in the objective, intrinsic sense. If I disagree with his value system, he thinks that I have the WRONG value system, that I am mistaken about what is intrinsically important about reality itself. Thus, we see that Wayne is living on theism's terms. Whether or not he sees this is another matter. Shy of taking him through a rather extensive course on ontology, I don't know how to make it clearer.

[waynepii]

I stepped away from this thread for a few days trying to figure out a better way to explain the problem. Skimming through some of the recent discussions, it appears that there is something fundamental that makes sense to us, but Wayne is simply not seeing. I think I've figured it out.

1. Wayne sees society's declarations of right and wrong as objective. Indeed, they are. It is an objective fact that murder is "wrong". So, for him, this can serve as an "objective morality," so he doesn't see where we keep insisting that morality cannot be objective if God does not exist.

No, I see them as subjective - and have said so many times in this and a few other similar threads.

2. Wayne believes that morality is subjective in the sense that humans--individually and collectively--decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Yep

When a collection of people make that decision, their collection subjective idea becomes an objective fact. Thus, it seems that morality can be objective and subjective at the same time.

No. The Golden Rule provides a basis for a "moral compass" that is not perfect, but far better than subjective codes of conduct. In many important cases, the GR provides an objective standard.

To this, we need to point out that he has made two basic mistakes:

1. It is certainly an objective fact that societies (and individuals) have certain beliefs. Those beliefs are certainly objective insofar as others examine them. It is, for example, an objective fact that Wayne believes that morality is subjective. It is NOT true, however, that morality itself is therefore objective.

And it's not true that I believe that.

In other words, the belief about morality is objective. That says nothing about morality itself. As we have been repeatedly pointing out, morality itself cannot, by definition, be objective if it is rooted in the human mind.

I agree, with the exception that the GR DOES provide an objective reference in many cases.

2. Wayne is using the word "wrong" entirely too loosely. Consider the following two sentences:

1. "Murder is wrong"
2. "I do not like murder."

What is the subject of the first sentence? Murder.
What is the subject of the second sentence? Me.

The first is making an objective claim. The second is making a subjective claim. The first is predicating something about murder. The second is predicating something about me. What we are trying to get Wayne to see is that if morality is subjective, when he says "Murder is wrong" he is only saying something about himself, not about murder itself. He is speaking in the second sense. He cannot even say, "I think murder is wrong" because "wrong" is still being predicated to "murder."

Now, this is where the fundamental problem comes in: if something is "wrong," in the moral sense of the word, we are saying it "ought not to be." If we say "why should it not be?" then the answer is "because it is X." X can be filled with any number of things. Because it is . . .

bad for society
mean
inconsistent with the Golden Rule
a good way to land in jail
etc.

We would point out that each of these, however, are based on a personal value. If things are ought not be because they are bad for society, then the assumption is what is good for society ought to be; thus, societal good becomes the basic value. If not that, then kindness, the Golden Rule, self-preservation, or some other value takes it places.

The problem here is that each of these values are subjective. They are personal preferences. We cannot say that any of these values are wrong (or right) because we would end up with a circular argument. If I say, "No, Wayne. I don't think that what is good for society is an important value," and he replies, "Well it is wrong to not care about society," I can simply reply, "Why?" He cannot say, "It is wrong to not care about society because the most important value is the good of society." Put your X whatever you want there. It all becomes circular, subjective preference.

How about "it violates the GR"?

Against this, what we mean when we say it is wrong is another X entirely: we mean this. It is wrong because . . .

it is evil.

Here, "evil" is something predicated to the nature of the act itself. It is not a value. As such, it cannot be circular. This means that some things are, in and of themselves, good and others are, in and of themselves, evil. It is this "in and of themselves" that we are focusing on when we say the word "objective," which Wayne seems to be missing because he is looking at "objective" in the sense described above.

How do we find out if [insert act of choice] is in fact "evil"? Lacking a reliable, non-subjective way of getting the verdict leaves us with a subjective transactional morality, even if God exists and has established an objective morality.

In light of this, I suggest we add the word "intrinsic." Things cannot be intrinsically wrong in any objective sense if no God exists. If God does not exist, Wayne cannot say that murder is wrong. All he is capable of saying is:

"Murder is an act that violates my basic value system, and therefore, I say it ought not be practiced by me or anyone who holds to my value system."

I am saying "murder is wrong because it violates the GR".

Of course, this is a far cry from saying that murder is really wrong, because if I don't hold to his value system, then I simply agree with his statement because it has no bearing on me. I can feel free to murder without it being wrong at all!

Wrong - try using the GR.

But Wayne really DOES believe that murder is wrong in the objective, intrinsic sense. If I disagree with his value system, he thinks that I have the WRONG value system, that I am mistaken about what is intrinsically important about reality itself. Thus, we see that Wayne is living on theism's terms. Whether or not he sees this is another matter. Shy of taking him through a rather extensive course on ontology, I don't know how to make it clearer.

See the GR.

I have been trying very hard to explain how a value system based on the GR works and how such a system is quite objective. But the REAL issue is how a God-based "Objective Morality" value system works. Will SOMEONE please explain how you use it to discover whether murder (for example) is wrong (or evil, or ... )?

[Byblos]

I have been trying very hard to explain how a value system based on the GR works and how such a system is quite objective. But the REAL issue is how a God-based "Objective Morality" value system works. Will SOMEONE please explain how you use it to discover whether murder (for example) is wrong (or evil, or ... )?

This is just pointless. We cannot graduate to epistemology (how we know things are wrong or evil) or methodology (method by which we discover them) before we agree on ontology (what the thing is independent of our thoughts). You keep asserting GR is sometimes objective and yet emphatically claim you do not hold to OM. That is simply a contradiction. Either you believe GR is objective, and by definition that means its source is not us (whatever that source is, we call it God but you can call it X, ET, whatever), or you do not believe it is objective and therefore it is purely preferential. Either what Hitler did was universally evil or you must defend his acts as a right even if you deeply abhor them. It is really that simple.

1. Ontology
2. Epistemology
3. Methodology

You want to jump to 3 before passing through 1 and 2. Like I said, pointless.

[Jac3510]

You are terribly right, Byblos. I was really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He kept insisting he understood the distinction. I was looking for a way that maybe he did and I was misunderstanding him . . .

Wayne, with all due respect, you are just contradicting yourself. I can't say it any clearer than Byblos already did. You may be trying very hard, but you are failing because you are trying to do something that is logically contradictory. The GR is an epistemological, not ontological, issue. It discovers, not determines, morality. Epistemology does not determine ontology. It is because you aren't grasping that that you keep trying to make a subjective morality be able to claim the benefits of objective morality (namely, saying things are really wrong).

[waynepii]

Why can't you give a simple answer to a simple question - how do you "know" murder is wrong? Why do you invariably put my viewpoint down in lieu of answering the question? It can't be that difficult to discover whether an act in which you are tempted to engage is "wrong".

I just apply the GR - simple, definitive, consistent. What do you do?

[Byblos]

Why can't you give a simple answer to a simple question - how do you "know" murder is wrong? Why do you invariably put my viewpoint down in lieu of answering the question? It can't be that difficult to discover whether an act in which you are tempted to engage is "wrong".

I just apply the GR - simple, definitive, consistent. What do you do?

I do not hold to your GR. I have my own. It's called SF (survival of the fittest). Why do you insist on imposing your GR on me? Why can't I impose my SF on you? Who's right and who's wrong? What do you do now?

[waynepii]

Another non-answer. Or are you really saying that SF IS "Objective Morality"?

If you don't want to answer my question or cannot, just say so.

[Byblos]

Another non-answer. Or are you really saying that SF IS "Objective Morality"?

Equally as objective as your GR. Do you not agree? If not, why not? (I truly hope you see what I'm trying to say but I don't know any more).

If you don't want to answer my question or cannot, just say so.

You truly are in the dark, Wane. We were at an impasse before and sadly here we are again.

[waynepii]

Another non-answer. Or are you really saying that SF IS "Objective Morality"?

Equally as objective as your GR. Do you not agree? If not, why not? (I truly hope you see what I'm trying to say but I don't know any more).

SF pretty much says murder is not wrong, so how do YOU know murder is "wrong". You DO consider murder "wrong", don't you?

If you don't want to answer my question or cannot, just say so.

You truly are in the dark, Wane. We were at an impasse before and sadly here we are again.

I guess I am. I sure aren't getting an answer to my question.

Just in case the question was missed,I'll ask it again.

How does a person discover whether an action in which they are tempted to engage is truly "right" or "wrong"?

[Jac3510]

Wayne, we can't answer that question because we have not dealt with the ontological issue yet. It's like asking someone how to spell a word without using the alphabet. "Spell CAT." "OK . . . 'C'" " NO NO NO DON'T USE THE ALPHABET JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION HOW DO YOU SPELL IT?!?"

Remember when I laid out (in brief) virtue theory for you? You complained that was subjective, too. Look what you did - I offered you a METHODOLOGY (based your epistemological question) and you fell back on ontology. "Your method is subjective, too!" Of course it is! And that's fine because method (epistemology) doesn't determine the thing (ontology).

In any case, your GR doesn't MAKE morality objective. Byblos' SF doesn't MAKE morality objective. They are both a VALUE SYSTEM by which to READ morality. If there is no morality to read, then it is totally subjective. The question is whether or not a morality exists at all outside the mind to be read. THAT is the ontological question that you are refusing to see. THAT is what we are after. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that there is no morality external to the mind to be read (what we are calling objective reality) but then say that things are really right or wrong in reality. They can't be right or wrong in reality because they don't exist in reality if morality is only subjective. So if it subjective, then murder is NOT wrong. It just is not YOUR PREFERENCE. Nothing more.

The fact that you know that murder is more than a preference should lead you to acknowledge that morality is objective, which means you should have the intellectual courage (another moral issue, by the way) to admit the logical conclusion: God exists (and to answer a question from a long time ago, I don't base objective morality on God's existence. I base God's existence on, along with many other things, objective morality).

[waynepii]

So the ONLY way you know murder is "wrong" is by advanced psychology? Do those lacking psych training then have to rely on those who psych-qualified for "right/wrong" guidance? How do the pysch-deficient validate the guidance they receive, or do they have to take it on faith? This process is objective?