Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact is your realism view is a primal and primitive view driven by an evolutionary default, thus supported by the majority.

It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter.

Maybe it's a rare case where intersubjective consensus doesn't work.

The once majority realist views,
1- the earth is flat
2- the Sun revolves the Earth
were based on an evolutionary default, i.e. primal and primitive.
Copernicus exposed the ignorance of those who believe in 2.

Those primal and primitive evolutionary defaulted that still persist at present by the majority as ideology are
a. - God exists as real
b. - the realist absolutely human- or mind-independent reality like yours.

Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to expose the philosophical ignorance those clinging to b.

As a non-theist you critique theists as delusional;
but you don't realize you are relying on the same [slightly different shade] independent of humans[mind] realism as the theists in claiming your ideology of an absolutely human-independent reality which make you delusional as well.

[Atla]

The inherent moral sense in humans is also an evolutionary default. Therefore we should get rid of it, it's primal and primitive and wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The sense of external_ness leading to the ideology of realism [philosophical] is fundamental to basic survival and had operated at its peak relative significance in the beginning of the evolution of the human species. It is still useful at present.
The problem is the p-realists adopt this basic sense of external_ness as a dogmatic ideology of 'my way or the highway'.

The moral sense is an evolutionary default that was adapted much later than the fundamental sense of external-ness to facilitate the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and the human species.
The moral sense emerged necessary as an inactive function that unfolds slowly with the changing psychological states of the majority of humans.

An analogical comparison is the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs



The sense of externalness is at the bottom of the Hierarchy while that of the moral sense is a few layers higher operating within a continuum not in discrete layers.
The principle of the hierarchy is, the bottom features [still needed but] lose their significance and criticalness in alignment with the progress of the majority.

The point is, while the lower features are still useful should not be adopted as fundamentalistic ideologies as what the p-realists are doing with their realism -sense of external_ness.

[Will Bouwman]

If your appreciation of Polanyi extends to agreement, you can't claim science as an objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

If you are thinking that, then I have to point out that you haven't understood Polanyi. I do recommend you read him...

No need. I last read him while researching these two articles:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

It's always objectively true whether or not one had an experience of X or Y.

Now, it's not the kind of objective thing one can transfer to another...

Then, as per what we are talking about, you accept it is not

...an objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

You seem unfamilar with the impossibility of an actual infinite regress. But mathematics, all by itself, demonstrates it absolutely.

You have laboured the point sufficiently that I understand your argument perfectly well. However many times you repeat it, it remains an argument from ignorance. We simply do not know what conditions existed prior to the big bang.

So, back to your list: Science isn't objective.

You'll need to explain that claim.

Again? It's all in the first of the two articles mentioned above. There are different elements to science. Essentially there are phenomena, measurement and hypotheses, all of which, Polanyi would say, we bring our tacit knowledge and passions to bear on. Whatever case might be made for phenomena and measurement being objective, hypotheses are completely subjective. There are always alternative hypotheses for exactly the same phenomenon, therefore all hypotheses are underdetermined.

Spiritual experience isn't objective.

It's objectively real, or it's not.

It shouldn't be beyond you to appreciate the difference between an experience being objectively real, your interpretation of that experience being objectively true and your experience being and objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." You could make a case that it is "always objectively true whether or not one had an experience of X or Y", but you deciding it is spiritual is a subjective judgement and one biased by your obvious desire to attribute everything to a god you happen to believe in.

You only have your personal reasons for believing that your god created the heavens and the Earth.

No, I DO have personal reasons, but I also have the entire list above: scientific, observational, logical, mathematical, spiritual and moral reasons, among others.

Your interpretation of all of them is personal.

You really ought to acquaint yourself better with the whole field of apologetics, perhaps, Will. If I can say this nicely, without offense, you don't seem at all to know what's in there, or how any of it works. If you did, I think you'd be a lot more convinced, or at least more nuanced in any criticisms you offered, perhaps.

You don't have to eat the whole apple to know it's rotten.

[Peter Holmes]

It seems you are wrong on the grounds that too many people agree with you, Peter.

Maybe it's a rare case where intersubjective consensus doesn't work.

The once majority realist views,
1- the earth is flat
2- the Sun revolves the Earth
were based on an evolutionary default, i.e. primal and primitive.
Copernicus exposed the ignorance of those who believe in 2.

Those primal and primitive evolutionary defaulted that still persist at present by the majority as ideology are
a. - God exists as real
b. - the realist absolutely human- or mind-independent reality like yours.

Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to expose the philosophical ignorance those clinging to b.

As a non-theist you critique theists as delusional;
but you don't realize you are relying on the same [slightly different shade] independent of humans[mind] realism as the theists in claiming your ideology of an absolutely human-independent reality which make you delusional as well.

But we corrected the opinion that the sun orbits a flat earth, by finding out the fact of the matter - something that just is the case - the thing you say is a delusion.

The fact that human knowledge and descriptions of reality change is not evidence that there is no reality beyond what humans know and describe. On the contrary, it's evidence that there is.

If there were no reality independent from what humans know and describe, our knowledge and descriptions could never change. Anti-realism is incoherent, and absurdly anthropocentric.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Maybe it's a rare case where intersubjective consensus doesn't work.

The once majority realist views,
1- the earth is flat
2- the Sun revolves the Earth
were based on an evolutionary default, i.e. primal and primitive.
Copernicus exposed the ignorance of those who believe in 2.

Those primal and primitive evolutionary defaulted that still persist at present by the majority as ideology are
a. - God exists as real
b. - the realist absolutely human- or mind-independent reality like yours.

Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to expose the philosophical ignorance those clinging to b.

As a non-theist you critique theists as delusional;
but you don't realize you are relying on the same [slightly different shade] independent of humans[mind] realism as the theists in claiming your ideology of an absolutely human-independent reality which make you delusional as well.

But we corrected the opinion that the sun orbits a flat earth, by finding out the fact of the matter - something that just is the case - the thing you say is a delusion.

As I had argued, human relied on the human-based science-astrological FSERC to confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.
Without humans, there is no way we can realize and confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.

There is no way to confirm there is "something that just is the case" without grounding contingently any claim of reality on a human-based science-astrological FSERC with its specific constitution.

This is the complain by deflationists that the inflationists [like you] are simply inflating facts with something extra[illusory] that is substantial and do not exists as real.

The fact that human knowledge and descriptions of reality change is not evidence that there is no reality beyond what humans know and describe. On the contrary, it's evidence that there is.

The change is only relative to the prior human-based FSERC fact upon discover of newer and more convincing empirical evidences.

As such, the latest fact [FSERC] is merely a more-polished-conjecture than the previous one without any need to contrast it against any reality beyond the empirical.

It is never the task of science to confirm there is "something that is the case" outside is framework, system and scope.
What certain [not all] science [antirealism] does is to ASSUME there is a mind-independent reality out there awaiting discovery.

Science by its definition cannot affirm 'there is an objective mind-independent reality out there"; the most it can do is to ASSUME it for its convenience and guide.

If there were no reality independent from what humans know and describe, our knowledge and descriptions could never change. Anti-realism is incoherent, and absurdly anthropocentric.

Ditto above.
Antirealism is based on whatever the empirical evidences support as grounded on the respective FSERC and do not speculate nor assume beyond what is empirically available and possible.

Realism speculates and 'inflates' there is something beyond what is empirically possible.
What is beyond the empirical is merely a speculative illusion.
This is why I charge your 'what is fact' is illusory, false and not true.

[Immanuel Can]

If your appreciation of Polanyi extends to agreement, you can't claim science as an objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

If you are thinking that, then I have to point out that you haven't understood Polanyi. I do recommend you read him...

No need.

You would find it otherwise, if you did. If those articles are the sum of your resources, then I have to point out that you seem to have absorbed some rather wrong ideas about what he argues. But that may be the fault of the articles, not so much of you.

You seem unfamilar with the impossibility of an actual infinite regress. But mathematics, all by itself, demonstrates it absolutely.

You have laboured the point sufficiently that I understand your argument perfectly well. However many times you repeat it, it remains an argument from ignorance. We simply do not know what conditions existed prior to the big bang.

Your rejoinder makes obvious that you actually don't understand the argument. It doesn't depend at all on us knowing what happened prior to the BB...it only requires us to be able to do simple mathematics. But if you check it out, that's exactly what you will discover.

So, back to your list: Science isn't objective.

You'll need to explain that claim.

Again? It's all in the first of the two articles mentioned above. There are different elements to science. Essentially there are phenomena, measurement and hypotheses, all of which, Polanyi would say, we bring our tacit knowledge and passions to bear on. Whatever case might be made for phenomena and measurement being objective, hypotheses are completely subjective. There are always alternative hypotheses for exactly the same phenomenon, therefore all hypotheses are underdetermined.

Then you're using the word "objective" in a rather limited and partial way. You're seeming to use it to mean, "Known perfectly," or something like that. But science is empirical, which means the product of the interaction between humans and objective reality. That obviously means that human knowing can be right or wrong. Which it is, is not established by the mere dynamics of knowing, but rather by the correspondence of the knowledge in question to reality itself.

I can "think" that the world is round or flat. In both cases, the "personal" element that Polanyi talked about is implicated; however, one is right and one is wrong. One reflects or conforms to reality, the other denies it.

Spiritual experience isn't objective.

It's objectively real, or it's not.

It shouldn't be beyond you to appreciate the difference between an experience being objectively real, your interpretation of that experience being objectively true and your experience being and objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

It's a very good thing I don't rely on my "experience" to reveal that, then.

You could make a case that it is "always objectively true whether or not one had an experience of X or Y", but you deciding it is spiritual is a subjective judgement

So far so good. But some "subjective judgments" conform to reality, and some do not.

and one biased by your obvious desire to attribute everything to a god you happen to believe in.

Well, biases are also two-sided things, Will. If, as you suppose, I have a "bias" in that regard, it may be a bias toward the truth, or a bias toward a falsehood: it's simply ad homimem to suppose that one can dismiss an idea on the basis of denigrating the motives of the speaker, obviously.

You only have your personal reasons for believing that your god created the heavens and the Earth.

No, I DO have personal reasons, but I also have the entire list above: scientific, observational, logical, mathematical, spiritual and moral reasons, among others.

Your interpretation of all of them is personal.

"Interpretation"? Well, again, you need a better understanding of Polanyi's argument, I think. He's not at all one of the postmodern relativist set. But that seems to be how you're interpreting him. But logic and mathematics are not subjects of the "personal." My willingness to recognize that "2+2=4 will not alter reality in any way. Nor will a logical sequence, founded on a true set of premises and followed through validly lead to untruth. So the effects of things like "bias" can be reduced substantially or even eliminated by way of a rigorous use of those.

You really ought to acquaint yourself better with the whole field of apologetics, perhaps, Will. If I can say this nicely, without offense, you don't seem at all to know what's in there, or how any of it works. If you did, I think you'd be a lot more convinced, or at least more nuanced in any criticisms you offered, perhaps.

You don't have to eat the whole apple to know it's rotten.

I don't think you've even really had a bite. You don't seem to know much about the "apple," if I can say that without offense.

[Will Bouwman]

If those articles are the sum of your resources, then I have to point out that you seem to have absorbed some rather wrong ideas about what he argues. But that may be the fault of the articles, not so much of you.

Which goes to show that things are interpreted differently according to one's tacit knowledge and passions, just as Polanyi claimed.
Here's the exchange you are referring to:

If you are thinking that, then I have to point out that you haven't understood Polanyi. I do recommend you read him...

No need. I last read him while researching these two articles:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

It suits your world view to paint me as poorly read, to which purpose you have interpreted the above perhaps to mean the entirety of my reading is two articles in Philosophy Now. An alternative interpretation is that I last read Polanyi while doing research for two articles that I wrote.

You seem unfamilar with the impossibility of an actual infinite regress. But mathematics, all by itself, demonstrates it absolutely.

You have laboured the point sufficiently that I understand your argument perfectly well. However many times you repeat it, it remains an argument from ignorance. We simply do not know what conditions existed prior to the big bang.

Your rejoinder makes obvious that you actually don't understand the argument.

I understand the argument and, unlike you, I understand why it is unsound.

...you're using the word "objective" in a rather limited and partial way.

I'm using it in context. As I say here:

It shouldn't be beyond you to appreciate the difference between an experience being objectively real, your interpretation of that experience being objectively true and your experience being and objective source of evidence that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

You're seeming to use it to mean, "Known perfectly," or something like that.

Well, I gave you examples of different contexts and God bless you if you think any of them mean as you suggest.

[Immanuel Can]

If those articles are the sum of your resources, then I have to point out that you seem to have absorbed some rather wrong ideas about what he argues. But that may be the fault of the articles, not so much of you.

Which goes to show that things are interpreted differently according to one's tacit knowledge and passions, just as Polanyi claimed.

Again, Will, you haven't quite got Polanyi right. He does not believe everyone "interprets differently according to one's knowledge and passions." He claims, rather, that all knowing involves the person. He does not say that's going to result in "different conclusions," nor that it is going to vary without regard for the data. He believes in science and in data, clearly.

Please consider reading "Personal Knowledge." You'll find it very helpful, I'm certain. And it's a totally secular argument that Polanyi makes. But you can see.

You have laboured the point sufficiently that I understand your argument perfectly well. However many times you repeat it, it remains an argument from ignorance. We simply do not know what conditions existed prior to the big bang.

Your rejoinder makes obvious that you actually don't understand the argument.

I understand the argument and, unlike you, I understand why it is unsound.

If you understand it, then why does your "refutation" of the point miss the target completely? I say again: there is no expectation in the infinite regress argument that you know anything except mathematics. The basic is very simple:

Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive)
Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes. (Presently observable and scientific)
Conclusion: the universe cannot be infinitely old. (Corollary: it must have an original cause).

You can see that at no point does the argument ask you "What came before the BB?" It doesn't require or depend on that piece of information at all. Nor is the positing of any "condition" going to affect the argument. All one has to grasp is what the word "infinity" implies. It means, obviously, that the sequence has no end. And a "regress" is simply a sequence going backward...a sequence with no beginning.

Do you see it now?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The basic is very simple:

Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive)
Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes. (Presently observable and scientific)
Conclusion: the universe cannot be infinitely old. (Corollary: it must have an original cause).

You are begging the question.
In your P1 you assume [without proofs nor justifications] there must be starting cause,
then conclude there is an actual original cause.

Rationally, you should just focus on and start with what is empirically evident and empirical possibilities.
Then make claims on what is empirically evident and possible as far as the evidences support the claim and do not speculate beyond the empirically possible on the question of infinite regress at all.

This is what is human-based science and other knowledge are doing.
They make empirically supported claims as far as the empirical based evidence and argument can support it which is useful for humanity's use and progress.
There is no need to make speculated claims like an original cause for human-based science or other knowledge to be useful as based on their credibility and objectivity.

Science [& other knowledge] can be truthful and objective within its human-based framework and useful to humanity without the need to speculate on an original or first cause at all. Science has been successful without taking the first cause as critical since >500 years ago.

When science-chemistry confirm 'water is H20' it does not give a damn whether there is an original cause or infinite regress at all. It is the same for all scientific facts.

Where science did consider the BB [speculation, assumption or hypothesis] as the first cause of the present reality, that is not absolute and it has no concern for any infinite regress.

Why theists and others must insist and speculate on an original or first cause is purely due to psychological desperation to soothe the cognitive dissonances.

[Immanuel Can]

The basic is very simple:

Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive)
Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes. (Presently observable and scientific)
Conclusion: the universe cannot be infinitely old. (Corollary: it must have an original cause).

In your P1 you assume [without proofs nor justifications] there must be starting cause,

Hmmm...you're not a very good reader, are you? It does not say "there must be a starting cause," or anything like that, though indeed the conclusion shows that there would have to be. But that's only in the conclusion, not P1. P1 says that an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist. And the reasons for that are mathematical.

Rationally, you should just focus on and start with what is empirically evident and empirical possibilities.

No. We should start from the most certain premises we can, and empirical ones are merely probabilistic, not certain. Mathematics is the most certain discipline we have. We should start from that, which is what I did.

As usual, you're just plain wrong. But you'll never see that, because you're not thinking clearly, or reading what's there in plain language. And that, I cannot help. I can explain it to you...I can't understand it for you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The basic is very simple:

Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive)
Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes. (Presently observable and scientific)
Conclusion: the universe cannot be infinitely old. (Corollary: it must have an original cause).

In your P1 you assume [without proofs nor justifications] there must be starting cause,

Hmmm...you're not a very good reader, are you? It does not say "there must be a starting cause," or anything like that, though indeed the conclusion shows that there would have to be. But that's only in the conclusion, not P1. P1 says that an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist. And the reasons for that are mathematical.

Don't be too sure of yourself, i.e. your ignorance. You are missing a lot of nuances.

You stated,
"because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts,"
which imply that if there is no infinite regress, then there should be a starting point for a causal chain.
You are arguing for no infinite regress so you can bring in your first starting point, the first cause.

Rationally, you should just focus on and start with what is empirically evident and empirical possibilities.

No. We should start from the most certain premises we can, and empirical ones are merely probabilistic, not certain. Mathematics is the most certain discipline we have. We should start from that, which is what I did.

As usual, you're just plain wrong. But you'll never see that, because you're not thinking clearly, or reading what's there in plain language. And that, I cannot help. I can explain it to you...I can't understand it for you.

Mathematics' 'most certainty' is based on humans-in-consensus setting the ground conditions within a human established formal system, i.e. the mathematical axioms or whatever conditions.
Mathematics are true within its closed formal system and do not represent reality as it is.

If you claim "1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats with certainty', that is mathematically certain and true, but to prove reality,
you will need the science-biology FS to confirm with empirical evidences, the real existence of those cats; mathematics is merely to quantify what is realized as real.

As you can see, although the empirical can never be 100% certain, its credibility and objectivity can be established within a framework and system [FS] of realness, e.g. the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility of reality and objectivity in confirmation of emergent and realized reality and subsequently its perception, cognition and description.

Not sure if you can my point?

[phyllo]

Mathematics is used to model the real world.

We make observations and we find math equations which fit those observations.

We don't have any pre-BB observations so we don't know which mathematical equations are applicable before the BB.

We cannot just assume that general mathematics applies. We know that many mathematics do not correctly represent real world.

[Immanuel Can]

In your P1 you assume [without proofs nor justifications] there must be starting cause,

Hmmm...you're not a very good reader, are you? It does not say "there must be a starting cause," or anything like that, though indeed the conclusion shows that there would have to be. But that's only in the conclusion, not P1. P1 says that an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist. And the reasons for that are mathematical.

Don't be too sure of yourself, i.e. your ignorance. You are missing a lot of nuances.

"Mathematics nuances"? Do carry on.

You are arguing for no infinite regress so you can bring in your first starting point, the first cause.

Even were you right, my motive is utterly immaterial, if the argument is sound. You might not like it, but that doesn't even remotely give you reason to think it's wrong. To beat P1, what you have to prove is that an actual infinite regress is possible.

Let's see you do that.

Mathematics' 'most certainty' is based on humans-in-consensus

Mathematics has nothing to do with "human consensus." 2+2 will always = 4, regardless of how many people know it. That's the beauty of maths.

Mathematics are true within its closed formal system and do not represent reality as it is.

If that were true, then the disciplines known as "physics" and "engineering," would be impossible. But not only are they possible, they're two of the most successful and "hard" disciplines at the university.

If you claim "1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats with certainty', that is mathematically certain and true,

More importantly, you can demonstrate mathematically that an infinite regress of prerequisites (such as causes) is impossible.

I can show that, with mathematics. Can you make an actual demonstration of the opposite...namely, can you show an actual infinite regress of prerequisites? Hint: you'll find you simply cannot.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't have any pre-BB observations so we don't know which mathematical equations are applicable before the BB.

We don't need any.

You're trying to make a demand for us to introduce a necessity for empirical information into an argument that proves conclusively that the very theory of an actual infinite regress of prerequisites is impossible. But this isn't an empirical argument, and doesn't call on us to have any empirical data beyond what we can observe presently. We know...

A) at present, we can see, every day and in many ways, that we are in a cause-effect universe. There's no other of which we know, or can know, or can fail to be part of the universe.

B) an actual infinite regress of prerequisites isn't even conceptually coherent, and thus it's unsurprising that we have no example of one in the empirical world.

It's up to the objectors, then, to show that either A) we aren't in a cause-effect universe presently, or B) that an actual infinite regress of prerequisites is rationally and mathematically possible, or empirically available.

Can they do either? Let's see them do it, then.