A Critique on Objective Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:19 pm

IC. Who are you arguing with? Uwot and I have both agreed with you that the original statement made in the OP is not a valid logic claim so why do you regard such agreement as a personal affront? Are you saying that the converse of an illogical statement is true by default?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Morality is especially not objective.
Is this not merely question-begging? On what rational basis do you hope to establish this claim?
.
It's painfully obvious that morality is a series of thoughts and relations of ideas. Morals cannot exist as "OBJECTS" and therefore cannot be objective in any sense.
The claim that they are has probably been the most destructive idea in human history and has given rise to abuse, slavery, and oppression.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:59 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:IC. Who are you arguing with? Uwot and I have both agreed with you that the original statement made in the OP is not a valid logic claim so why do you regard such agreement as a personal affront?
Ah. good. Reason without rhetoric.

Now we are indeed in agreement.
Are you saying that the converse of an illogical statement is true by default?
No, I would never say that. All knowledge claims require evidentiary support. I was merely pointing out that what the original poster was saying fell short of any such standard.

That point taken, I am content to wait to see who has a genuine "Critique of Objective Morality," as promised by the header. For I have yet to see one. (S)he seemed to be offering a couple of ideas, but as we can see, they weren't any logical good.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Apr 09, 2016 2:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
That point taken, I am content to wait to see who has a genuine "Critique of Objective Morality," as promised by the header. For I have yet to see one. (S)he seemed to be offering a couple of ideas, but as we can see, they weren't any logical good.
Maybe you could say what you think it is?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:IC. Who are you arguing with? Uwot and I have both agreed with you that the original statement made in the OP is not a valid logic claim so why do you regard such agreement as a personal affront?
Ah. good. Reason without rhetoric.

Now we are indeed in agreement.
Are you saying that the converse of an illogical statement is true by default?
No, I would never say that. All knowledge claims require evidentiary support. I was merely pointing out that what the original poster was saying fell short of any such standard.

That point taken, I am content to wait to see who has a genuine "Critique of Objective Morality," as promised by the header. For I have yet to see one. (S)he seemed to be offering a couple of ideas, but as we can see, they weren't any logical good.
You don't get off that easily. Whether or not the original statement is correctly definable as a knowledge claim is completely tangential to the point because it then simply falls into the same class of statements as my "leprechauns do not exist" example. This remains a logically grounded statement of opinion because not a trace of evidence exists to support the converse, which is a superstition grounded solely on belief. The convention in philosophy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and thus in the case of the leprechauns this burden of proof lies with the person who would claim they exist.

The same applies to the absurd notion of an objective morality. This is a belief claim based on the assumption that a transcendent authority exists to impose such an objective standard, an assumption which is unprovable by its own definition.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:21 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:The same applies to the absurd notion of an objective morality. This is a belief claim based on the assumption that a transcendent authority exists to impose such an objective standard, an assumption which is unprovable by its own definition.
But...so far no one has asserted anything such as you suggest (yet), and the topic of this strand is "A Critique On Objective Morality," not "A Proof For Objective Morality." We are still waiting for what was promised by the header made good.

You have already conceded that you cannot make it good. Thank you for your frankness. But we must be fair. After all, you are not the only game in town: maybe others have a line to offer that you have not yet found. We owe others at at least a chance to speak, no?

So be patient: let's see if anyone has anything that might even potentially justify such a title. It might take them a day or two...or longer.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: the topic of this strand is "A Critique On Objective Morality,"
Exactly so, but you continue to deliberately evade my point by arguing against a position which I haven't taken. In case you've missed my point I'm generalising the central assumption that there's such a thing as an objective reality at all which can be defined as existing independently of an interpretation of it which must be specified by the observer of it. Since this is what is usually meant by a response to a "critique" then this is the point I now ask you to address in turn. For instance, do you dispute it and if so on what grounds?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:17 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote: the topic of this strand is "A Critique On Objective Morality,"


Exactly so, but you continue to deliberately evade my point by arguing against a position which I haven't taken.
Actually, I'm merely asking if the original poster of the comment, "Morality is especially not objective" has anything behind such an assertion. I'm not arguing with you, since you haven't said that. In fact, you said the opposite: that (and here are your words) "to assert the non-existence of ANYTHING can never be proven, even in principle." So it's perfectly clear where you stand on that. You don't think the original poster is being logical. I agree. So I have no argument with your decision.

As for your "position I haven't taken," I've attributed nothing to you by way of a "position." I'm only concerned with the claim made by the original poster. We're both skeptical of his claim. For once, we're on the same side. Relax.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:45 pm

Am I then free to assume that you decline to answer my question?

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by uwot » Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:But...so far no one has asserted anything such as you suggest (yet)...
So you keep saying. Most of the big name philosophers have had a crack and although there are different shades and variations, they all fall into either the deontological or consequentialist camps. Either you obey some set of rules, or you obey your conscience.
We all know perfectly well that you believe you have some argument that there is an objective, god given set of rules, and that you can save your conscience any angst by persuading yourself that whatever you do is god's will. We're just waiting to see what this argument is. As soon as you grow the balls to present it, one or other of us will rip it to pieces and spit it out.
And by the way, Immanuel Can; I'm not American.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote: Actually, I'm merely asking if the original poster of the comment, "Morality is especially not objective" has anything behind such an assertion...
As for your "position I haven't taken," I've attributed nothing to you by way of a "position." I'm only concerned with the claim made by the original poster. We're both skeptical of his claim. For once, we're on the same side. Relax.
You are, as usual being disingenuous.
You've taken exception to this assertion for the simple reason that you consider there to be such a thing as an "objective moral truth". Yet you seem not to be able to say how this can be the case.

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by uwot » Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are, as usual being disingenuous.
Seconded.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:52 am

Come on, IC, this is no time to be precious. Tell us that objective morality is ineffable and then explain how we are then supposed to eff it.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:18 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Come on, IC, this is no time to be precious. Tell us that objective morality is ineffable and then explain how we are then supposed to eff it.
Not at all. I did not tell you anything of the kind. "Ineffable" is your word, and I was not the organizer of this debate. I did not set the terms we would debate on this strand. I was not the original poster, and I'm honouring his/her choice of topic. But you know that.

I can quite see what you don't like, though. You don't like is simply that the denial of objective morality is on such non-evidentiary grounds that it cannot be rationally affirmed at all. You'd like me to change the terms of debate, because they simply don't favour the original poster's view at all. But I'm not the one who bit this off. I'm certainly not going to help him/her chew it.

If anyone's got the missing evidence to warrant the "critique, then I say ante up. Prove that the poster had something to say. Of if you have no such evidence, then I think we can all safely resolve that there IS no rational critique of objective morality...at least none anybody here knows of.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:Come on, IC, this is no time to be precious. Tell us that objective morality is ineffable and then explain how we are then supposed to eff it.
Not at all. I did not tell you anything of the kind. "Ineffable" is your word, and I was not the organizer of this debate. I did not set the terms we would debate on this strand. I was not the original poster, and I'm honouring his/her choice of topic. But you know that.

I can quite see what you don't like, though. You don't like is simply that the denial of objective morality is on such non-evidentiary grounds that it cannot be rationally affirmed at all. You'd like me to change the terms of debate, because they simply don't favour the original poster's view at all. But I'm not the one who bit this off. I'm certainly not going to help him/her chew it.

If anyone's got the missing evidence to warrant the "critique, then I say ante up. Prove that the poster had something to say. Of if you have no such evidence, then I think we can all safely resolve that there IS no rational critique of objective morality...at least none anybody here knows of.
Run away!! Run away!! :D :D :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests