How in the world can morality be human-mind independent?

This kind of hard-science objectivity is inapplicable for the construct (morality) that you're trying to understand. Obviously morality is not objective in this sense, so why would anyone even expend energy questioning this?

The source of disagreement I assume will instead be in - the implications - of the fact that there is no "ontologically objective" morality. Some people automatically assume - nihilism, while others like myself and Original Position may point to answers in the social sciences; where objectivity's definition or standard of evidence is appropriately contingent upon whatever particular construct is being measured/explained.

Use google

Are you implying that morality can indeed be human-mind independent? or do you just want me to use google for no reason?

I'm implying that you can use google to determine that many philosophers entertain the possibility that morality is human-mind independent, and this ought to be enough for you to pump the breaks on the 'how in the world' dubiety.

Moral Realism is as good a place as any to start.

I also like to entertain the possibility that I am God. Should others refrain from incredulity when I tell them about me being God?

I've read up on the philosophy when I was a lot younger, but I just didn't know anyone could take it seriously in this day and age.

I think the probability that you are God is far lower than the probability that you don't know better than professional philosophers about which views deserve incredulity.

Well, this is then an instance of complete ignorance.

/thread

+1

It really fascinates me to learn that there are otherwise intelligent people out there who don't understand that philosophy underpins pretty much everything they do.

Slavery was wrong even when we didn't realize it was wrong. It is objectively wrong because it is antithetical to a thriving society.

Morality is more than preference. It isn't that we "prefer" not to murder, its that we as a species enjoy existing. In order to exist we cannot permit things like murder.

In order to sustain existence, certain things can not be allowable. Those things that are deleterious to the survivability of a species will ultimately be deemed immoral, because even if we are not consciously aware of it, our continued existence is our top priority.

Slavery is still around today.

You're a slave to whatever masters you in life and sin still masters most people.

Because you know me so well....

You wouldn't happen to be a "professional philosopher" would you? or do you just somehow happen to know that my views deserve the above quoted incredulity?

Lol wat? I'm inferring based on what you said. It was pretty clear.

how is that at all relevant to what I said?

As I said, I don't take "ontologically objective" as being "human-mind independent." Since you seem to think that ontological objectivity is the only real objectivity, wouldn't that mean that you also don't believe in objective morality by your own lights?

Platonists believe that the nature of morality flow from the idea of goodness. The crucial difference is that Platonists believe that ideas actually exist as independent objects. So, if you also believe in the existence of the idea of goodness as an really existing abstract object, then you could say morality is ontologically objective. These concepts would exist and have the nature they have regardless of whether or not humans or anything else had ever existed, or whatever they thought about morality.

A relatively true moral statement would be a statement that would be true in some human societies, but not in others. An absolutely true moral statement would be a statement that is true in all human societies. Thus, clearly distinguished.

As for showing this, yes, it would be difficult. Showing that a particular moral (or economic, social, psychological, etc.) statement is true in all human societies is not easy. This is after all why the claim that moral rules are absolute is a controversial claim. But I don't see how it is particularly harder on my view than on any other. In fact, I think I'm at least showing how we could show this. For instance, if we could show that some empirical claims about human psychology or social science are universally true, then the moral claims based on those facts would also be absolutely true. You might not think those claims are universally true. Fine. Then you would also not think that moral claims based on those facts are absolutely true either.

So do you think that moral rules are also embedded into the universe in a way that is parallel to the idea of the physical laws? Assuming that you believe that morality is objective, and that is the only genuine sense of objectivity, then this would seem to follow. However, if you do think this is the case, then my conclusion would still follow. After all, naturalistic atheists believe in physical laws and the laws of logic. So then if the rules of morality are also embedded into the universe, why wouldn't they be able to also accept those rules?

As for your last sentence, think of examples from game theory for how this can happen.

Evidently not.

My point is that if you accept the divine command theory, the meaning of moral perfection is post hoc with regards to god. This is unlike saying, for instance, that god is omnipotent. We don't define "omnipotence" as "whatever god is able to do." Thus, saying that god is omnipotent has a determinate meaning about god's nature (something like, god is able to do anything that is logically possible). But if we define "moral good" as "whatever god's nature is," then yeah, we are not saying anything determinate about god's nature by saying that he is morally good.

Thus, a god with the other properties attributed to god but with different moral commands would still be morally perfect and thus the greatest possible being (on the assumption of divine command theory).

I'm unsure at this point how to resolve my viewpoint with the language as it is presented. Theologically, I believe that God sustains the universe, ie the universe's existence is dependent upon God in an ongoing sort of way. Furthermore, that ongoing sort of way is willfully driven, so it's not like God left the TV on while he went for a walk.

So things like "the sun is bigger than the earth" is dependent upon "the mind of God" in the same way that morality is dependent upon "the mind of God."

Where does that put me in terms of the language that you're using?

But how far do you have to go to get a "human society"? Is a community of 4-5 families on an isolated island a community? Does your definition only require one such community to exist in order for a moral statement to be relatively true? Also, is this a time-constrained definition? That is, if a human society existed in the 1500s that has the opposite moral belief as a human society in the 2500s, does that imply that the statement is (will be) relatively true? How far back in time do you allow "human society" to stretch? Do hunter-gatherer societies count?

See above. I think I adequately addressed this.

It's possible that they might come to accept those rules. I don't know whether they can come to accept those rules using the methodologies presented.

How does a naturalist come to accept the laws of logic? Almost certainly, it's through a different methodology than the one used to come to accept the laws of physics.

I'll think about it, but I don't immediately see what you're getting at.

Sommerset wrote

Slavery was wrong even when we
didn't realize it was wrong. It is
objectively wrong because it is
antithetical to a thriving society.

So what happened? Why didnt they know back then that slavery was wrong?

Social evolution would be my guess

Slavery was wrong even when we
didn't realize it was wrong. It is
objectively wrong because it is
antithetical to a thriving society.

so you prefer a thriving society over something else?

Social evolution what is that exactly?

You don't need to be a professional philosopher to read something like 'most philosophers today are moral realists' and conclude that being categorically dismissive of that based on what 'you read when you were a lot younger' (whatever that means) is extremely silly. For heaven's sake Sam Harris is some sort of ethical naturalist isn't he (a type of moral realist)?

An excellent example of how religion does not in fact provide an objective source of morality.

yeah its good old human nature. why put faith in the morals of man when there such so much suffering and evil in the world