Thread by @EveKeneinan

I suppose I should explain the fallacy here, since it may not be obvious if you aren’t used to seeing it.

https://twitter.com/SecularOutpost/status/1475802804967014406

Basically, it is an equivocation on “objective.”

The claim is that an “objective morality” is “any moral system with a non-mind-dependent standard.” And it is trivially easy to select such a standard.

The problem is that the SELECTION is subjective.

So I can claim that morality is based on "how much the nearest feather weighs.”

That would yield objective, indeed, measurable standards.

But it wouldn’t really, because the objective standard is erected arbitrarily and subjectively.

But what people actually mean by “objective morality” is “a moral system that is TRUE regardless of any subjective beliefs about it” and NOT “any proposed moral system that posits an objective standard.”

God — the Good Itself — is the necessary ground and condition of there being such a TRUE morality.

You can’t get true objectivity by saying “my subjective choice of an objective standard makes my moral system objective.”

A Nazi can and will say “My objective standard of morality is ‘whatever is good for the Aryan race’” and he will have posited an objective standard.

Subjectively, he will have posited it.

But this has no bearing at all even on WHETHER there is a true, objective morality.

So the claim that “objective morality” is compatible with there not being a God is true — but in a trivial sense that isn’t what the claim usually means.

It is true only in the sense “an objective standard may be (subjectively) posited as well as the absence of God.”

But much more importantly it is true that “a true, objective morality needs an absolute ground, and God is the only possible ground.”

So if morality is ACTUALLY objective — not merely subjectively posited as such — THEN God is the ground of morality.

You can see this by asking the question, to any of the proposed “objective moralities”: WHY SHOULD I OBEY? WHAT OBLIGATES ME TO OBEY E.G. SELF-INTEREST? or WHAT OBLIGATES ME TO ABIDE BY A CONTRACT? etc.

That is the primary error of this silly chart, that is, that it fails to show what it purports to show, because to substitutes a different, equivocal sense of “objective.”

There’s another error, which should also be pointed out.

The second serious error is that it places God on the “subjective” side of its proposed subjective/objective dichotomy.

But God’s WILL is not distinct from God’s NATURE.

So God belongs as much on the OBJECTIVE side as the SUBJECTIVE.

Even on its own terms, the chart acknowledges its own error — it files God on the “subjective” side by focusing on God’s will, but files “rational will” on the objective side, under Kantianism.

So all that would be needed would be to hold that God’s will is a RATIONAL WILL to place God on the “objective” side BY THE CHART’S OWN STANDARD.

But of course God’s will is not merely rational, but HOLY (as Kant says) which means PERFECT.

Nor is God’s will distinct from God’s nature (except conceptually, to us).

God is the Good Itself, which is, as Socrates says “beyond being, exceeding it in dignity and power.”

God is neither “subject” nor “object” but the GROUND OF BEING OF BOTH.

If there is any truth in this thing it would be the correct claim that “the ground of objective morality is not the arbitrary will of some kind of super-person.”

That’s true, but that isn’t the Christian claim.

No one makes that claim, as far as I know, so *shrug*.

Anyway, don’t be misled because this silly chart uses some technical philosophical jargon.

You can see it is worthless by this: the top line asserts that “will” is subjective, but it goes on to place “will” on the objective side.

Or again, it places “decision” on the subjective side, dividing that branch by the question “who decides?”

But on the objective side: Who decides …

what utility is/requires?
what self-interest is/requires?
what counts as/as part of a social contract?

etc.

The alleged “objective side has not escaped subjectivity at all, nor can it, since morality is necessarily connected with the actions of free agents, that is, subjects.

Anyway, that’s enough to show why and how this chart is nonsensical.

I’m going back to my book and away from my computer now. 😀