Is morality objective or subjective?

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

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Pete

Post by henry quirk »

"And when you demonstrate your love, is that like demonstrating the existence of a real thing like a chemical element or the Higgs boson? Does love exist in a way analogous to the way such real things exist?"

Yes, in the sense that love (loving) is action (which exists). Walking exists, yeah? Seeing exists, yeah? Loving exists, yeah?

"What exists is the behaviour and its motivations that we call 'loving'. But to extrapolate from that to the claim that there is a real thing - a thing as real as rocks and stones and trees - that is 'love' is a metaphysical delusion."

Be fair, Pete. I said loving is an action, like walking, and actions are real.

#

"You claim that 'the moral dimension of reality' or 'the Natural Law' or 'objective morality' exists. But you obviously don't think they exist in the way a chemical element exists or a fundamental particle exists - demonstrably."

What I said is moral objectiveness/moral realism/Natural Law is a principle (more accurately, specifically with Natural Law, a description of principle). The three laws of thermodynamics describe Reality, describe principle, describe the way things are: are those three laws (more accurately, is what they describe) real?

"The difference is that thermodynamics describes the way real things in the universe actually behave or function. The science is demonstrable. And what it describes is reality, not a principle (a given rule or starting point). You seem a little confused here. What you call Natural Law, moral realism or moral objectivism doesn't describe something demonstrably in the way that thermodynamics does."

Drop principle, substitute describing features of Reality: yes, Natural Law describes a feature of Reality as surely as the laws of thermodynamics.

#

"To be moral is to be free to choose."

In context: one is free to align one's self with the way things are or attempt to do otherwise.

"Here the failure of the analogy is evident. If thermodynamics describes reality correctly - as seems to be the case - we aren't free to choose to 'align' ourselves with reality. But we can choose to transgress any moral 'rule', whatever its real or imagined source."

Of course you can ignore Reality. You'll get slapped back (or burned) but absolutely a person can choose to, for example, believe himself exempt from gravity. He'll fall of course, but nuthin' stops him from climbin' on the roof and takin' a leap while flappin' his arms. In the same way: a person can choose to believe, for example, other folks are merely resources for his own use. He'll pay the price, of course, but nuthin' stops him from attempting to way-lay the unsuspecting and takin' his pleasure from them.

#

A man can shove his naked hand into a blazin' camp fire as many times as he likes, insistin' it's his right, but he's gonna get burned each and every time.

"Agreed. But people can and do 'disobey' moral rules all the time, often without consequences. And that's why moral realism is nothing like thermodynamics."

You sure of that, Pete? Seems to me there's always a comeuppance, not always as immediate as the burn that comes from playin' with fire mebbe, but a comeuppance nonetheless.

#

"Natural Law, the 'moral dimension of reality', is merely sublimated theology."

Ain't no sublimation: flat out, I recognize the way things are through the lens of my deism.

"Imo, to the extent that deism is even less intellectually defensible than classical theism, it is even more ridiculous."

How so?

#

-----

Pete, do you think murder (killing another person without just cause) is wrong?

Offing a person in defense of self or in defense of another is killing, but not murder.

A catastrophic miscalculation resulting in a person's death is killing, but not murder.

Murder is intentfully, willfully, killing a person pretty much cuz you just want 'em dead.

Is murder wrong?

If yeah: why?

If no, why not?


"So why is killing in self-defence morally right and justifiable?"

Mebbe it isn't: can you tell me why?

#

"Is there a fact of the matter here? Is there something we can test, in the way we can test thermodynamic theory, to demonstrate the moral rightness or wrongness of an action?"

Hey, Pete: do you think murder is wrong.

Why? Why not?

#

"I understand the frustration of moral realists and objectivists, and why it must end up with this table-banging, lapel-grabbing rage: is murder morally wrong, or isn't it? We want certainty for our moral judgements - so we end up out-sourcing them to reality, or 'the way things are', or Natural Law, or the Noboddady god of theism, or the absent god of deism - and so on. Insert the delusion of choice."

Yeah, back up, Pete. I'm no more frustrated than you, no more table-bangy and lapel-grabby than you. It's just a conversation (spiced with a little debate). I'm not particularly invested here. That my views don't move you bothers me no more than it bothers you your views don't move me.

#

"It's much more rational to accept moral responsibility and argue individually and collectively for the moral values and judgements we want to have and make."

No, it's more reasonable to recognize one's self as a free will in a moral universe, utterly self-responsible. The alternative is the barren amorality you subscribe to, a vacant position that offers no opportunity for moral responsibility cuz, as you reckon things, morality is absent and opinion rules.
Last edited by henry quirk on Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:45 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:53 pm
Indeed so.

I'm curious as to how we can discern that we have a "lack" of something we admit we couldn't recognize even if it appeared. After all, maybe it has appeared, but we had no idea what to look for. :shock:

But we could fix that.
But here your analogy breaks down...So bin the analogy, please.
Well, anything that's an analogy is only there to assist thought. It is not the substance of the thing itself, so we can let it go if it doesn't help you understand the question better.

The question itself is actually very easy: if you say that there's something lacking, how do you know that?
Okay, let me try to put it as clearly as I can.

I don't accept the claim that moral rightness and wrongness are independent features of reality, because, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that they are. I don't claim to know there is no evidence, because I can't possibly be sure. I just believe there is no evidence. And it isn't my responsibility to show that there is no evidence. The burden of proof for the claim is with moral realists and objectivists.

Now, are you able to provide or point to evidence for moral realism and objectivism?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:22 pm Okay, let me try to put it as clearly as I can.

I don't accept the claim that moral rightness and wrongness are independent features of reality, because, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that they are.
Okay, that's clear. Thanks.
I don't claim to know there is no evidence, because I can't possibly be sure.
Fair enough.
I just believe there is no evidence.
Interesting. Why believe anything on no evidence? Can we suppose that the absence of evidence would be evidence of absence? Only if we were to know for a fact that we were owed evidence personally, and it had not yet appeared...though even then, we'd have to concede that it might yet appear, so even that's a thin ground for skepticism...it seems that what that would warrant was a continuing state of suspended judgment on the question, rather than a preclusion in favour of the negative...
And it isn't my responsibility to show that there is no evidence.

No, I accept that. I just was wondering how, if someone DID give you evidence, just how you'd be able to recognize it when you saw it. That, of course, would depend on what you'd be expecting as evidence.
Now, are you able to provide or point to evidence for moral realism and objectivism?
Well, I believe in moral objectivism, and I do I think I see evidence for it. But I don't know if it's evidence you'd accept, since I don't know what you would be prepared to recognize as evidence.

Hence, my question. Thank you for your response.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

And thanks for yours. You say this:

'Why believe anything on no evidence? Can we suppose that the absence of evidence would be evidence of absence? Only if we were to know for a fact that we were owed evidence personally, and it had not yet appeared...though even then, we'd have to concede that it might yet appear, so even that's a thin ground for skepticism...it seems that what that would warrant was a continuing state of suspended judgment on the question, rather than a preclusion in favour of the negative...'

I think this argument is mistaken. The absence of evidence for a claim may not mean the claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational. Rational skepticism means withholding acceptance or belief pending evidence. And that isn't 'preclusion in favour of the negative'.

I'd be interested to know what you count as evidence for the existence of moral rightness and wrongness - of moral values - as actual features of reality, independent of belief, judgement or opinion. But sharing that is your decision.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:49 pm The absence of evidence for a claim may not mean the claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
Actually, it really doesn't even mean that much. It only means that to claim to know the claim is true is irrational; but so is to claim to know it's false. Absence of evidence offers nothing to support either side.

All it means is that some person has not had a personal experience of the evidence, so has a personal reason to suspend judgment -- but none whatsoever yet for speaking against the possibility of someone else having a different experience, or knowing evidence that the skeptic has not yet discovered. In point of fact, it doesn't even so much as suggest that the skeptic himself won't discover new evidence in the next five minutes. :shock: He could.

So it's an awfully soft skeptical position that an absence of evidence by itself can rationalize.
Rational skepticism means withholding acceptance or belief pending evidence. And that isn't 'preclusion in favour of the negative'.
So long as that's all it is. But like I say, rational personal skepticism only argues for a soft uncertainty, a kind of tentative agnosticism...nothing stronger. If it becomes any stronger, then it is indeed obviously preclusion in favour of the negative.
I'd be interested to know what you count as evidence for the existence of moral rightness and wrongness - of moral values - as actual features of reality, independent of belief, judgement or opinion. But sharing that is your decision.
I'm interested in knowing what I could do to supply you with evidence you'd accept. I just don't know what that would look like, for you.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:45 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:49 pm The absence of evidence for a claim may not mean the claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.
Actually, it really doesn't even mean that much. It only means that to claim to know the claim is true is irrational; but so is to claim to know it's false. Absence of evidence offers nothing to support either side.
This is wrong. To believe a claim is to accept that it's true. There's no suggestion of claiming to know that it's true - just as to disbelieve a claim is not to claim to know it's false. For example, theists believe there's a god, but very few claim to know there's a god - very few are gnostic theists. And I think most atheists are agnostic atheists.

All it means is that some person has not had a personal experience of the evidence, so has a personal reason to suspend judgment -- but none whatsoever yet for speaking against the possibility of someone else having a different experience, or knowing evidence that the skeptic has not yet discovered. In point of fact, it doesn't even so much as suggest that the skeptic himself won't discover new evidence in the next five minutes. :shock: He could.

So it's an awfully soft skeptical position that an absence of evidence by itself can rationalize.
Not so. I think you really do not understand the issue here. Each of us can only go on what we experience, including what other people tell us, in order to form rational beliefs. And belief is an on/off switch: we either believe a claim or we don't. And the plausibility of a claim varies with the nature of the claim.

What you seem to be describing is a kind of knife-edge balancing act: 'I don't know if this claim is true or false, someone else may know that it's true, I may find out it's true in the next five minutes - so I must neither believe nor disbelieve this claim.'

Must we neither believe nor disbelieve that there are fairies? Is that the rational position to take?
Rational skepticism means withholding acceptance or belief pending evidence. And that isn't 'preclusion in favour of the negative'.
So long as that's all it is. But like I say, rational personal skepticism only argues for a soft uncertainty, a kind of tentative agnosticism...nothing stronger. If it becomes any stronger, then it is indeed obviously preclusion in favour of the negative.
I'd be interested to know what you count as evidence for the existence of moral rightness and wrongness - of moral values - as actual features of reality, independent of belief, judgement or opinion. But sharing that is your decision.
I'm interested in knowing what I could do to supply you with evidence you'd accept. I just don't know what that would look like, for you.
What does the evidence look like to you? If it's strong enough to have persuaded you, why do you think it may not persuade me? And who cares if it doesn't?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am I think most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I think it's quite logically obvious that all Atheism is irrational. Agnosticism is potentially rational, but blank on the question: one has no position to take from "knowing nothing" about an issue.
Not so. I think you really do not understand the issue here. Each of us can only go on what we experience, including what other people tell us, in order to form rational beliefs. And belief is an on/off switch: we either believe a claim or we don't. And the plausibility of a claim varies with the nature of the claim.
All your experience can tell you is whether or not you've had a particular experience personally already. It can't tell you whether or not you could, whether or not someone else has, or whether or not you will.
What you seem to be describing is a kind of knife-edge balancing act: 'I don't know if this claim is true or false, someone else may know that it's true, I may find out it's true in the next five minutes - so I must neither believe nor disbelieve this claim.'
Correct.
Must we neither believe nor disbelieve that there are fairies? Is that the rational position to take?
That depends. Do you know that there are rational grounds for believing in fairies? If you did, you might be rational to do so. That's what "rational" implies.
What does the evidence look like to you? If it's strong enough to have persuaded you, why do you think it may not persuade me? And who cares if it doesn't?
Well, let me give you an example of an evidence that's going to be very strong for me, but impossible for me to transfer to you.

My personal relationship with God -- my experiences. For me, that's part of the grounds, and a powerful contributor to my faith. And justifiably so: first-hand experience is good in a court of law, is good on a scientific experiment, is good on a routine basis for everybody. It's really good evidence -- provided you're the one having the experience. :shock:

However, you would not have rational grounds for believing, even if my experiences are genuine, that they give you rational grounds for similar belief, because there's no way you could personally discern that they are genuine. You couldn't even judge that question by estimating my personal character or honesty, because we're talking by email at the moment, and you don't know me at all, really. So it gives you nothing, and I would not blame you if you said, "Well, that's no good for me." Fair enough.

But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept? That's a better question.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept?"

Post by henry quirk »

Pete was pretty clear up-thread: an objective morality has to as real as a chemical element or the Higgs boson, as real as rocks and stones and trees.

He wants to touch morality.

-----

Not to be table-bangy and lapel-grabby, but...

Pete, do you think murder (killing another person without just cause) is wrong?

...or...

Is the value of a human being assigned or is it intrinsic?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: "But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept?"

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:57 pm Pete was pretty clear up-thread: an objective morality has to as real as a chemical element or the Higgs boson, as real as rocks and stones and trees.

He wants to touch morality.

-----

Not to be table-bangy and lapel-grabby, but...

Pete, do you think murder (killing another person without just cause) is wrong?

...or...

Is the value of a human being assigned or is it intrinsic?
1 I assume you're being facetious. I don't want to touch morality, because I believe morality (moral rightness and wrongness) is not the kind of thing that could be touched, even in principle. For the same reason, I don't want to touch knowledge, truth, justice, identity, being, beauty, and so on, and so on. Supposed abstract things aren't things that may or may not exist - and thinking they are is a delusion, one shared by moral objectivists who believe moral rightness and wrongness are, somehow, things that exist, somehow, somewhere.

2 Yes, I think murder is wrong - that's my moral judgement, belief or opinion. But my thinking it's wrong doesn't mean I think it's a fact that it's wrong. I have reasons for thinking it's wrong, but that doesn't mean its wrongness is 'out there', somehow, somewhere, in the way that features of reality really are 'out there', independent of my opinion. If you think a moral judgement expresses a fact, please can you provide one that does, because the claim 'murder is wrong' is obviously an opinion - a moral judgement - so that's no use for moral objectivists.

Nothing but thumping the table, so far.

Henry, try this thought-experiment. Suppose two people look at a painting, and one says it's beautiful and the other says it isn't beautiful. Is there a fact of the matter - something in the painting itself that could settle the question conclusively? Is there a thing of some kind - call it beauty - that a painting either has or doesn't have, independent of opinion, so that one person is stating a fact, and the other is just wrong?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
uwot
Posts: 4961
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am I think most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I think it's quite logically obvious that all Atheism is irrational.
That's because you still don't know what atheism means. For the umpteenth time an atheist need only assert 'I do not believe that god exists.' They are not committed to asserting 'I believe that god does not exist.' It is not "irrational" not to believe in something for which the evidence is so weak that only someone desperate to believe would be persuaded.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:03 pmAgnosticism is potentially rational, but blank on the question: one has no position to take from "knowing nothing" about an issue.
Nor do you understand agnosticism; it is not the position ""I know nothing" about an issue", it is that there is nothing that can be known. Get yer bleeding' facts right.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

"Yes, I think murder is wrong - that's my moral judgement, belief or opinion."

Why is it your moral judgement, belief or opinion? What is your reasoning to say I think murder is wrong?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am I think most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I think it's quite logically obvious that all Atheism is irrational. Agnosticism is potentially rational, but blank on the question: one has no position to take from "knowing nothing" about an issue.
As I believe uwot has pointed out, you don't understand what atheism is, nor how belief works. Try this thought-experiment.Take a claim that you don't accept or believe. Suppose you don't believe the Hindu gods exist. (Or choose some other claim, such as 'there are flying pigs on Mars'.) Now, look at what 'not believing a claim' means.
Not so. I think you really do not understand the issue here. Each of us can only go on what we experience, including what other people tell us, in order to form rational beliefs. And belief is an on/off switch: we either believe a claim or we don't. And the plausibility of a claim varies with the nature of the claim.
All your experience can tell you is whether or not you've had a particular experience personally already. It can't tell you whether or not you could, whether or not someone else has, or whether or not you will.
Yes, and if no experience I've had persuades me to accept a claim, then it's rational not to accept it.

What you seem to be describing is a kind of knife-edge balancing act: 'I don't know if this claim is true or false, someone else may know that it's true, I may find out it's true in the next five minutes - so I must neither believe nor disbelieve this claim.'
Correct.
Bingo. 'I must not believe this claim'. Notice the words: 'I must not believe this claim'. So now you understand what atheism amounts to: not believing a god-claim. Your belief above, that 'it's logically obvious that all Atheism is irrational' is patently false - and certainly nothing to do with logic.
Must we neither believe nor disbelieve that there are fairies? Is that the rational position to take?
That depends. Do you know that there are rational grounds for believing in fairies? If you did, you might be rational to do so. That's what "rational" implies.
As above, I know of no rational grounds for believing that fairies exist, so it's rational for me not to believe they exist. I wonder why you're finding this so hard to grasp.

What does the evidence look like to you? If it's strong enough to have persuaded you, why do you think it may not persuade me? And who cares if it doesn't?
Well, let me give you an example of an evidence that's going to be very strong for me, but impossible for me to transfer to you.

My personal relationship with God -- my experiences. For me, that's part of the grounds, and a powerful contributor to my faith. And justifiably so: first-hand experience is good in a court of law, is good on a scientific experiment, is good on a routine basis for everybody. It's really good evidence -- provided you're the one having the experience. :shock:

However, you would not have rational grounds for believing, even if my experiences are genuine, that they give you rational grounds for similar belief, because there's no way you could personally discern that they are genuine. You couldn't even judge that question by estimating my personal character or honesty, because we're talking by email at the moment, and you don't know me at all, really. So it gives you nothing, and I would not blame you if you said, "Well, that's no good for me." Fair enough.
1 Even if there were a god - your personal relationship with it is irrelevant in this argument - that wouldn't mean morality is objective. So there being a god wouldn't be evidence for objective morality. To believe that is to misunderstand what objectivity means - independence from opinion.

2 I have a personal relationship with the invisible green goblin in my kitchen. And my testimony would be good enough in a court of law, so it should be good enough on a routine basis for everybody, and it's really good evidence as far as I'm concerned. Those patients with mental disorders - well, what they believe is obviously ridiculous. I'm of good character and honest as the day is long.

But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept? That's a better question.
So you agree your (no doubt entirely honest and genuine) belief that you have a personal relationship with a god is of no use as evidence for anyone - presumably apart from someone who believes they've had the same experience - that a god exists.

And anyway, the existence or non-existence of a god or any other agent has no bearing on the objectivity or otherwise of morality.

So what's left is evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness as real things - features of reality - independent from opinion, as are all features of reality. Any offers?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:27 pm "Yes, I think murder is wrong - that's my moral judgement, belief or opinion."

Why is it your moral judgement, belief or opinion? What is your reasoning to say I think murder is wrong?
I note your bold emphasis. Banging the table again.

Tell you what, you tell me why you think murder is wrong. And then, explain why every fact you cite is morally wrong - and on and on until you reach: well, it's wrong because it's wrong. In other words, you'll have no factual basis for the moral judgement that murder is wrong - because the moral assertion expresses a judgement. It does not make a factual claim.

You can keep banging the table, of course.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:10 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:03 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am I think most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I think it's quite logically obvious that all Atheism is irrational. Agnosticism is potentially rational, but blank on the question: one has no position to take from "knowing nothing" about an issue.
As I believe uwot has pointed out,
Mr. uwot, I regret, is perversely addicted to blasphemy, contrary to the safety of his own soul. I have tried to speak kindly with him, but found his responses turn that way every time.

So I am morally bound to ignore his fits of ire, in the interest of not encouraging him to harm himself. In fact, I don't want to see him judged, and would take no pleasure in it. But he seems to think he wants to challenge God directly. So I have to stand out of the way, because I don't want to incite him further to harm himself.
you don't understand what atheism is
Oh, I'm quite certain I do.
Now, look at what 'not believing a claim' means.
Atheism, by etymology and definition, is not "a mere lack of belief." It's "active disbelief." Those are quite different, as I'm sure you'll happily recognize. But you'll perhaps tend to think that the Atheist can be merely the former, not the latter.

Not, however, by definition. Thus, if some skeptics use the terms imprecisely, that's their problem, not ours.
Yes, and if no experience I've had persuades me to accept a claim, then it's rational not to accept it.

Correct.

But no more than that. You would not be rational to deny it. You would not be rational to tell others they had to deny it. You would not be rational to assert that you were necessarily going to deny it forever, either. All you could say is, "For now, I have no rational evidence or experience with that."

Correct.
Bingo. 'I must not believe this claim'.
"Nor disbelieve" it. You must reserve judgment.
As above, I know of no rational grounds for believing that fairies exist, so it's rational for me not to believe they exist.
It's rational to withhold your belief so long as you have no rational grounds. If rational grounds are provided, you would have to revisit your conviction, or fail to be rational.
So it gives you nothing, and I would not blame you if you said, "Well, that's no good for me." Fair enough.
1 Even if there were a god - your personal relationship with it is irrelevant in this argument - that wouldn't mean morality is objective. So there being a god wouldn't be evidence for objective morality. To believe that is to misunderstand what objectivity means - independence from opinion.
In philosophy, we use the word more precisely than that. It means that which is not "subjective," and that which "presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it." See https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

So what "objective" would imply is that God or morality existed whether or not any other subject perceived it to be so. And that's the meaning we're using here, I believe.
2 I have a personal relationship with the invisible green goblin in my kitchen.
That's a reductio ad absurdum, of course. You probably don't. But if you did, you would be rational to believe in it, unless you had overwhelming rational bases for doubting your own experience....such as that you were on LSD at the time, or somebody had dressed up and fooled you.
But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept? That's a better question.
So you agree...
But Peter, where is your answer? I asked a very straightforward question here.

Am I to assume, then, that there is no answer? That there is absolutely nothing you would ever accept as indicating the presence of God or the objectivity of moral values? :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But what IS good enough for you? What would you accept?"

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:57 pm Pete was pretty clear up-thread: an objective morality has to as real as a chemical element or the Higgs boson, as real as rocks and stones and trees.

He wants to touch morality.
Really? Wow.

Well, he's failed to understand what morality is, then. No wonder he's not convinced it's real...he must be a strict Materialist. Is that so?
Post Reply