bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:42 am
You are tempting me...
By denying the reality of evil, you offer me a chance to escape from hell.
But that would mean denying myself.
I think it's a damaging concept. I think it also makes one think that things that help me can be evil. But actually evil doesn't help. You don't actually have to try to 'be a better person' or something, but rather even selfish urges can draw most people towards making them better around other people. (sociopaths and psychopaths are exceptions). I don't think judging parts of yourself as evil helps.
It may be that the evil has no real substance, but I can never be the one to establish it.
Because evil became truth when I was cast out of heaven on earth for becoming aware of it.
It may be that a further step will take place.
But I certainly can't force the game, my faith in the Truth demands it.
Anyway thanks for your words!
You're welcome. Not sure what they did, nor exactly what you are saying.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:49 am
Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.
You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.
Yes, we can exclude objective morality as a category error, just as we can exclude the possibility of a subjective fact. If there can be no such thing as a subjective fact, there's no need to say that, pending evidence, belief that there are subjective facts is irrational, atm.
Moral rightness and wrongness are not identifiable properties of things and actions. That's why there's no way to adjudicate between the belief that abortion is morally wrong and the belief that it's not morally wrong. And the idea that, somewhere in the universe, it could be a fact that abortion is morally - makes no sense whatsoever. What could make it a fact that abortion is morally wrong? MInd-warp, or what?
You are claiming certain knowledge about reality, based on your own definitions and categories. That's crazy. I wonder if you're familiar with the very sensation of the natural "tribal" human morality?
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:04 pm
You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.
Yes, we can exclude objective morality as a category error, just as we can exclude the possibility of a subjective fact. If there can be no such thing as a subjective fact, there's no need to say that, pending evidence, belief that there are subjective facts is irrational, atm.
Moral rightness and wrongness are not identifiable properties of things and actions. That's why there's no way to adjudicate between the belief that abortion is morally wrong and the belief that it's not morally wrong. And the idea that, somewhere in the universe, it could be a fact that abortion is morally - makes no sense whatsoever. What could make it a fact that abortion is morally wrong? MInd-warp, or what?
You are claiming certain knowledge about reality, based on your own definitions and categories. That's crazy. I wonder if you're familiar with the very sensation of the natural "tribal" human morality?
He's not wrong though. Morals are in the categories of beliefs, opinions, customs, norms, expectations and so on. Some other thing that God knows about and only HE can know about wouldn't be the same category. So when we treat what we discuss as morals, which is our set of expectations of our own and other people's behaviour, it is a category mistake to apply universal God-Only-Knows rules to that game.
I've never heard of "tribal" morality, but the name doesn't sound like a winner if objectivity is the objective.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:47 am
Yes, we can exclude objective morality as a category error, just as we can exclude the possibility of a subjective fact. If there can be no such thing as a subjective fact, there's no need to say that, pending evidence, belief that there are subjective facts is irrational, atm.
Moral rightness and wrongness are not identifiable properties of things and actions. That's why there's no way to adjudicate between the belief that abortion is morally wrong and the belief that it's not morally wrong. And the idea that, somewhere in the universe, it could be a fact that abortion is morally - makes no sense whatsoever. What could make it a fact that abortion is morally wrong? MInd-warp, or what?
You are claiming certain knowledge about reality, based on your own definitions and categories. That's crazy. I wonder if you're familiar with the very sensation of the natural "tribal" human morality?
He's not wrong though. Morals are in the categories of beliefs, opinions, customs, norms, expectations and so on. Some other thing that God knows about and only HE can know about wouldn't be the same category. So when we treat what we discuss as morals, which is our set of expectations of our own and other people's behaviour, it is a category mistake to apply universal God-Only-Knows rules to that game.
I've never heard of "tribal" morality, but the name doesn't sound like a winner if objectivity is the objective.
Both of you seem to be only talking about words and opinions, while ignoring morality itself fundamentally. It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:57 pm
Both of you seem to be only talking about words and opinions, while ignoring morality itself fundamentally. It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness.
Well we know that what people experience as right and wrong is sort of similar at a second order but radiacally dissimilar in the first order case.
So, in the first order where we say "X is unacceptable" one person means it is unacceptable for his wife to overcook his dinner, but a second person says it is unacceptable that the first guy punched his wife for overcooking a steak.
In the second order case, what we say about morality can be very similar, but this is context not content. This is where th generalised rules and descriptions supersede first order feels and desires.
When we talk about category mistakes it is to do with second order statements about morality. There was never the slightest hint that first order experience of morality was anything other than subjective.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:57 pm
Both of you seem to be only talking about words and opinions, while ignoring morality itself fundamentally. It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness.
Well we know that what people experience as right and wrong is sort of similar at a second order but radiacally dissimilar in the first order case.
So, in the first order where we say "X is unacceptable" one person means it is unacceptable for his wife to overcook his dinner, but a second person says it is unacceptable that the first guy punched his wife for overcooking a steak.
In the second order case, what we say about morality can be very similar, but this is context not content. This is where th generalised rules and descriptions supersede first order feels and desires.
When we talk about category mistakes it is to do with second order statements about morality. There was never the slightest hint that first order experience of morality was anything other than subjective.
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:19 pm
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally obective subjective experience with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:19 pm
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally obective subjective experience with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
Objective morality wouldn't be objective-subjective. It would be objective.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:19 pm
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally obective subjective experience with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
Objective morality wouldn't be objective-subjective. It would be objective.
But you also said It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness. which is really quite subjective by my understanding.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally obective subjective experience with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
Objective morality wouldn't be objective-subjective. It would be objective.
But you also said It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness. which is really quite subjective by my understanding.
Not if they can somehow be universal, as in objective morality.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:19 pm
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally objective sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
It's something our language can't do. Experience is subjective by definition, sensation also. Sensations aren't the sort of thing that can be right and wrong, that is a category mistake.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:19 pm
Objective morality, being universally true, would have no such orders, I don't see why I'm the one making category mistakes.
A 5 sided triangle having both more than 4 and only 3 sides is something we have no language capable of describing. Perhaps God can conceive of such a thing, FDP cannot. Nothing that FDP can describe as a trinagle can be described as having 5 sides, the category does not contain the concepts used.
A universally objective sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness with truth criteria is in the same logical situation.
It's something our language can't do. Experience is subjective by definition, sensation also. Sensations aren't the sort of thing that can be right and wrong, that is a category mistake.
Expeience/sensation isn't subjective by definition. My take on my experience may be subjective by definition.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:17 pm
Expeience/sensation isn't subjective by definition.
Erm?
For experiences/sensations to be fully subjective you would have to believe that your mind is separate from reality no?
But my yellow could be the same as your yellow, and yellow could also exist in the inanimate world. Some kind of universal morality could also work like that. My personal take on my yellow can be seen as subjective though.
