Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Unlike some here, I do not argue there is no God. How on Earth could I possibly know that?

If you grew up in a household that didn't have particularly religious beliefs and grew up watching Carl Sagan on Cosmos, you might think differently. I mean, I'm agnostic. But I didn't start out that way. I mean, I wonder the same thing about people who argue that there is a God. Given the world we live in neither theism nor atheism seem particularly more tenable than the other to me. Of course, atheists don't have a God threatening them with eternal damnation if they aren't "true" atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

"Feelings?" Anybody who trust his/her feelings is bound to go off course. In regards to the Bible, it's better to do proper textual analysis and exegesis, not rely on feelings.

Well, since you mention the Bible, let's start with your feeling that the Bible is in some sense true; a feeling you clearly trust. No amount of textual analysis and exegesis can establish that objectively. How can you know you haven't gone "off course"?

Well, the Bible is 66 books...a library of different literary forms, composed by different authors, over a period of about a millennium and a half. And the "establishing" of any part of it has to happen by way of the appropriate test -- which is quite different for each kind of literary form. For example, a prophetic text is tested by its fulfillment. A doctrinal text is tested by its integrity with doctrine. Parables are tested by aptness. Wisdom literature is tested by its application to life. Poetry and songs are judged for both beauty and meaning. A historical account is tested by its consonance with historical facts. What "establishes" a part of that great 'library' is bound to depend on what part one is trying to verify.

So what are you wanting to verify or "establish," to use your term?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I say that what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. And I say that's why we value facts and objectivity.

You say that such facts are illusions, because humans 'construct' reality - the facts of reality. To put it simply: what we call a fact is a human construct.

But now, go very slowly here. If a fact is a human construct, then the fact that a fact is a human construct is also a human construct.

I agree up to this point.
It based on Kant's Copernican Revolution, the association with the human conditions is inevitable.
Note we have gone through this before.

To put it another way. If humans construct reality, then there can be no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.

Yes, there is no independent vantage point to observe that human construct reality, i.e. a human is not God and cannot have an absolutely independent perspective.

The vantage point of view is a shared-platform intersubjectively on the basis of a Framework and System of Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognition.

Look again at your contradiction here.

1 There is no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
2 There is a perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.

Intersubjectivity is subjectivity. So your appeal to intersubjectivity doesn't work. In other words, the claim 'humans intersubjectively construct reality' just adds a redundancy to the claim 'humans construct reality'.

Strawman as usual;
You seem to have some cognitive deficit in understanding [not agree with] my views.

Should be;

• 1 There is no absolutely-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
  2 There is a relative-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.

And anyway, this remains a realist claim - a claim about the way things are. So your 'intersubjective' anti-realism remains fundamentally contradictory: 'it's a fact that humans intersubjectively construct reality'.

Basically an antirealist claim cannot be a realist claim.
You are making a strawman out your ignorance.

But wait. Anti-realism is the claim that it's a 'fact' that humans construct reality - that it's a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of opinion.

When anti-realism depends on the collective share-consensus of a group of humans within a Framework and System, it is independent and regardless of the opinion of any individuals or a loose group of individuals.

As above, this distinction between individual and collective opinion is ineffectual.

Are you saying;
'this distinction between individual judgment and collective opinion [scientific community judgment] is ineffectual.
I have explained that the 'theory of general relativity' is, is not because Einstein [individual] said so, but rather it is the science-physics Framework and System [collective of subjects] said so.

For example, objective scientific facts [anti-realism] are independent and regardless of the opinions and belief of any individual scientists but it is not absolutely independent of the organized collective of subjects or human scientists.

But - such a thing - such a fact - is supposed to be an illusion.

It is only an illusion when realists claimed that facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Antirealists claim objective facts are independent of a subject or group of loose subjects and not absolutely independent of the human conditions because supposedly 'independent' objective facts in one perspective are not ultimately independent of the collective of subjects.
Thus in this case, objectivity is intersubjectivity.
Whatever is objective reality, there is no escape from the elements of the subjects, i.e. the collective-of-subjects.

Conclusion? Anti-realism rests on flatly contradictory premises. And that's a fact.

It appear to be contradictory, but antirealism's is relative independence while that of the realist is based on absolute independence which is not tenable.

Dependence on intersubjective opinion is not relative independence from opinion. How can it be? And you're back to the part of the story that is independent - reality itself.

You are claiming absolute independence of things existing out there, i.e. they exist regardless of humans.

Relative independence mean, the apple on the tree is within common sense independent from you, but that independence is subsumed within the human conditions, thus it is of relative independence, not absolutely independent regardless of humans.

Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is an illusion - and instead of mindlessly giving a link to your silly argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.

PS To put it another way. If reality is a human construct, then humans are also a human construct. And the human construction of reality is also a human construct. So there is no bottom or stopping point. If my 'what is fact' is an illusion, then all is illusion.

Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is contradictory - and instead of mindlessly giving shallow argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.

There is no issue of a bottomless pit for me.

And that's precisely because you don't recognise that your argument spirals down into the pit.

My focus is on the empirical which is human-based, I don't dig down to search for that things that is independent and regardless of humans. So, there is no bottomless pit.

You are the one who do not recognize your 'independent' thing regardless of humans is illusory and do not exists as real [empirically and philosophically].

What I start with is based on empirical observations of what is spontaneously experienced and the cognition and knowing of it is based on the collective-shared knowledge.
Thus what-is-knowledge is based on as far as the evidence can support reinforced with critical thinking and wisdom.
I don't need to speculate and assume there is something illusory beyond the empirical to be discovered.

As ever, your appeal to empiricism demolishes your anti-realism. Knowledge comes from experience of reality - not experience of an intersubjective human construct.

Re FSERC, knowledge comes from the experience of reality that emerges spontaneously inevitably and is realized within the human self.
It is antirealism because humans cannot extricate themselves from a reality in which they are part and parcel of.

I have argued, the ideology of realism [mind-independence] is driven by an evolutionary default of a necessary instinct of externalness. You are ignorant of this or deliberately shut yourself from this fact.

Btw, at present I am reading the book 'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti who argued your concept of what is fact is a sham.

[quote
'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti.
]https://www.amazon.com/Against-Facts-Pr ... 0262029219
An argument that the major metaphysical theories of facts give us no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world.

In this book Arianna Betti argues that we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world, at least as they are described by the two major metaphysical theories of facts. She claims that neither of these theories is tenableneither the theory according to which facts are special structured building blocks of reality nor the theory according to which facts are whatever is named by certain expressions of the form the fact that such and such. There is reality, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but, Betti contends, among these entities there are no facts.

Nuff said. Deep incomprehension. Of what do reality and its 'entities' (revealing obfuscation) consist?

I have read the preface and part of the intro.
At present just take note, there are alternative views to your 'what is fact' which I have argued is an illusion and sham from Analytic Philosophy. Preferably if you can read this as an alternative view to your linguistic ideology.
I have also argued Analyticism is already half-dead at present, you are clinging to very archaic ideology, i.e. related to the linguistic FSK.
I will present more details after I have read and understand the book.

Drawing on metaphysics, the philosophy of language, and linguistics, Betti examines the main arguments in favor of and against facts of the two major sorts, which she distinguishes as compositional and propositional, giving special attention to methodological presuppositions. She criticizes compositional facts (facts as special structured building blocks of reality) and the central argument for them, Armstrong's truthmaker argument. She then criticizes propositional facts (facts as whatever is named in the fact that statements) and what she calls the argument from nominal reference, which draws on Quine's criterion of ontological commitment. Betti argues that metaphysicians should stop worrying about facts, and philosophers in general should stop arguing for or against entities on the basis of how we use language.

Mistaking what we say for the way things are. But, of course, 'There is reality and there are entities in reality'. Realism by definition.

Countering without fully understanding the book is meaningless.
As I had stated, my mentioned of Betti is just to show [for the present only] there are alternative views of the majority Analyticism 'what is fact'.

Generally, what Betti argued is Analyticism 'what is fact' is only valid within its closed language-game re the linguistic-turn with its specific rules and definitions.
The Analyticism's 'what is fact' is illusory and cannot be really real within a reality-FSK like the scientific FSREC.
I will present more detail in the other thread later.

[Skepdick]

Well, since you mention the Bible, let's start with your feeling that the Bible is in some sense true; a feeling you clearly trust. No amount of textual analysis and exegesis can establish that objectively. How can you know you haven't gone "off course"?

Can any amount of textual analysis or exegesis establish any truth-content in the above words?

I'm thinking there's something else to the words than "truth" (whatever that is). A tradition, a methodology, some kind of social practice perhaps?

I wonder if it's of any consequence.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, the Bible is 66 books...a library of different literary forms, composed by different authors, over a period of about a millennium and a half. And the "establishing" of any part of it has to happen by way of the appropriate test -- which is quite different for each kind of literary form. For example, a prophetic text is tested by its fulfillment. A doctrinal text is tested by its integrity with doctrine. Parables are tested by aptness. Wisdom literature is tested by its application to life. Poetry and songs are judged for both beauty and meaning. A historical account is tested by its consonance with historical facts. What "establishes" a part of that great 'library' is bound to depend on what part one is trying to verify.

So what are you wanting to verify or "establish," to use your term?

Let's start at the beginning. Which of the above is Genesis, and how have you established whatever it is you feel you have established?

[Peter Holmes]

I agree up to this point.
It based on Kant's Copernican Revolution, the association with the human conditions is inevitable.
Note we have gone through this before.


Yes, there is no independent vantage point to observe that human construct reality, i.e. a human is not God and cannot have an absolutely independent perspective.

The vantage point of view is a shared-platform intersubjectively on the basis of a Framework and System of Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognition.

Look again at your contradiction here.

1 There is no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
2 There is a perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.

Intersubjectivity is subjectivity. So your appeal to intersubjectivity doesn't work. In other words, the claim 'humans intersubjectively construct reality' just adds a redundancy to the claim 'humans construct reality'.

Strawman as usual;
You seem to have some cognitive deficit in understanding [not agree with] my views.

Should be;

• 1 There is no absolutely-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.
  2 There is a relative-independent perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality: the human intersubjectively shared platform, etc.

And anyway, this remains a realist claim - a claim about the way things are. So your 'intersubjective' anti-realism remains fundamentally contradictory: 'it's a fact that humans intersubjectively construct reality'.

Basically an antirealist claim cannot be a realist claim.
You are making a strawman out your ignorance.

When anti-realism depends on the collective share-consensus of a group of humans within a Framework and System, it is independent and regardless of the opinion of any individuals or a loose group of individuals.

As above, this distinction between individual and collective opinion is ineffectual.

Are you saying;
'this distinction between individual judgment and collective opinion [scientific community judgment] is ineffectual.
I have explained that the 'theory of general relativity' is, is not because Einstein [individual] said so, but rather it is the science-physics Framework and System [collective of subjects] said so.

For example, objective scientific facts [anti-realism] are independent and regardless of the opinions and belief of any individual scientists but it is not absolutely independent of the organized collective of subjects or human scientists.


It is only an illusion when realists claimed that facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Antirealists claim objective facts are independent of a subject or group of loose subjects and not absolutely independent of the human conditions because supposedly 'independent' objective facts in one perspective are not ultimately independent of the collective of subjects.
Thus in this case, objectivity is intersubjectivity.
Whatever is objective reality, there is no escape from the elements of the subjects, i.e. the collective-of-subjects.


It appear to be contradictory, but antirealism's is relative independence while that of the realist is based on absolute independence which is not tenable.

Dependence on intersubjective opinion is not relative independence from opinion. How can it be? And you're back to the part of the story that is independent - reality itself.

You are claiming absolute independence of things existing out there, i.e. they exist regardless of humans.

Relative independence mean, the apple on the tree is within common sense independent from you, but that independence is subsumed within the human conditions, thus it is of relative independence, not absolutely independent regardless of humans.

Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is contradictory - and instead of mindlessly giving shallow argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.

There is no issue of a bottomless pit for me.

And that's precisely because you don't recognise that your argument spirals down into the pit.

My focus is on the empirical which is human-based, I don't dig down to search for that things that is independent and regardless of humans. So, there is no bottomless pit.

You are the one who do not recognize your 'independent' thing regardless of humans is illusory and do not exists as real [empirically and philosophically].

What I start with is based on empirical observations of what is spontaneously experienced and the cognition and knowing of it is based on the collective-shared knowledge.
Thus what-is-knowledge is based on as far as the evidence can support reinforced with critical thinking and wisdom.
I don't need to speculate and assume there is something illusory beyond the empirical to be discovered.

As ever, your appeal to empiricism demolishes your anti-realism. Knowledge comes from experience of reality - not experience of an intersubjective human construct.

Re FSERC, knowledge comes from the experience of reality that emerges spontaneously inevitably and is realized within the human self.
It is antirealism because humans cannot extricate themselves from a reality in which they are part and parcel of.

I have argued, the ideology of realism [mind-independence] is driven by an evolutionary default of a necessary instinct of externalness. You are ignorant of this or deliberately shut yourself from this fact.

Btw, at present I am reading the book 'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti who argued your concept of what is fact is a sham.

[quote
'Against Facts' by Arianna Betti.
]https://www.amazon.com/Against-Facts-Pr ... 0262029219
An argument that the major metaphysical theories of facts give us no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world.

In this book Arianna Betti argues that we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog of the world, at least as they are described by the two major metaphysical theories of facts. She claims that neither of these theories is tenableneither the theory according to which facts are special structured building blocks of reality nor the theory according to which facts are whatever is named by certain expressions of the form the fact that such and such. There is reality, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but, Betti contends, among these entities there are no facts.

Nuff said. Deep incomprehension. Of what do reality and its 'entities' (revealing obfuscation) consist?

I have read the preface and part of the intro.
At present just take note, there are alternative views to your 'what is fact' which I have argued is an illusion and sham from Analytic Philosophy. Preferably if you can read this as an alternative view to your linguistic ideology.
I have also argued Analyticism is already half-dead at present, you are clinging to very archaic ideology, i.e. related to the linguistic FSK.
I will present more details after I have read and understand the book.

Drawing on metaphysics, the philosophy of language, and linguistics, Betti examines the main arguments in favor of and against facts of the two major sorts, which she distinguishes as compositional and propositional, giving special attention to methodological presuppositions. She criticizes compositional facts (facts as special structured building blocks of reality) and the central argument for them, Armstrong's truthmaker argument. She then criticizes propositional facts (facts as whatever is named in the fact that statements) and what she calls the argument from nominal reference, which draws on Quine's criterion of ontological commitment. Betti argues that metaphysicians should stop worrying about facts, and philosophers in general should stop arguing for or against entities on the basis of how we use language.

Mistaking what we say for the way things are. But, of course, 'There is reality and there are entities in reality'. Realism by definition.

Countering without fully understanding the book is meaningless.
As I had stated, my mentioned of Betti is just to show [for the present only] there are alternative views of the majority Analyticism 'what is fact'.

Generally, what Betti argued is Analyticism 'what is fact' is only valid within its closed language-game re the linguistic-turn with its specific rules and definitions.
The Analyticism's 'what is fact' is illusory and cannot be really real within a reality-FSK like the scientific FSREC.
I will present more detail in the other thread later.

To repeat, in my opinion, much of the analytic movement constituted a wrong-turn to language. Because what do analytic philosophers analyse? Thought, ideas, concepts? And, if so, are those things amenable to analysis in the way that physical reality is amenable to scientific analysis? And if so, what kind of analysis, and with what results? It is and always was dressed up nonsense.

When I see the word concept, I reach for the fly-swatter. The myth of the mind, containing mental things and events, continues to befog our understanding. 'What is fact?' 'Well, it's a concept.' Sounds like an answer, sounds impressively technical - but it explains absolutely nothing.

If Betti 'generally' says that a fact exists only within a language game, then that mistakes what we say for the way things are. And here's the point: it's as mistaken to deny facts, such as identity - sameness and difference - in reality, as it is to insist on linguistic identity in reality outside language. Both mistakes testify to the dazzling power of language - evident in the silliness of truth-maker/truth-bearer theory, and other correspondence theories of truth.

For example, the things we call cats and dogs and rocks and stones and trees are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them, and whether we say they're the same as or different from each other.

Philosophical anti-realism has been a fashionable dead end for many decades, with false but seductive premises that continue to sucker the unwary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To repeat, in my opinion, much of the analytic movement constituted a wrong-turn to language. Because what do analytic philosophers analyse? Thought, ideas, concepts? And, if so, are those things amenable to analysis in the way that physical reality is amenable to scientific analysis? And if so, what kind of analysis, and with what results? It is and always was dressed up nonsense.

When I see the word concept, I reach for the fly-swatter. The myth of the mind, containing mental things and events, continues to befog our understanding. 'What is fact?' 'Well, it's a concept.' Sounds like an answer, sounds impressively technical - but it explains absolutely nothing.

While you may reject certain views of the Analytic Tradition, you nevertheless their definition of what is fact, i.e. a feature of reality, that is the case, states of affairs or just-is that is independent of the individual's opinions, judgement, beliefs.
You have defined 'what is fact' countless times.
That is what Betti reject as 'fact'.

I on the other hand, accept 'what is fact' as something that is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, i.e. not independent regardless of humans.

If Betti 'generally' says that a fact exists only within a language game, then that mistakes what we say for the way things are. And here's the point: it's as mistaken to deny facts, such as identity - sameness and difference - in reality, as it is to insist on linguistic identity in reality outside language. Both mistakes testify to the dazzling power of language - evident in the silliness of truth-maker/truth-bearer theory, and other correspondence theories of truth.

For example, the things we call cats and dogs and rocks and stones and trees are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them, and whether we say they're the same as or different from each other.

Yes, they are what they are in correspondence to the language games or FSERC.
There is no way cats, dogs, rock and stones can exists as things-in-themselves without the relation to everything in the cosmos and human-beings.

Philosophical anti-realism has been a fashionable dead end for many decades, with false but seductive premises that continue to sucker the unwary.

This is merely handwaving.
There are many types of philosophical anti-realism which oppose philosophical realism.
Philosophical anti-realism is the most effective supporting for the more advanced knowledge we have up to Quantum Physics, then cognitive neuroscience and various philosophies, e.g. morality.

One critical element with philosophical anti-realism is it give some control of reality and destiny to humans instead of being at the mercy of something beyond and is uncontrollable.
With objective morality, we have some sort of fixed moral 'lighthouse' [objective moral elements] to guide moral progress and avoiding the rocks of moral life.

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat, in my opinion, much of the analytic movement constituted a wrong-turn to language. Because what do analytic philosophers analyse? Thought, ideas, concepts? And, if so, are those things amenable to analysis in the way that physical reality is amenable to scientific analysis? And if so, what kind of analysis, and with what results? It is and always was dressed up nonsense.

When I see the word concept, I reach for the fly-swatter. The myth of the mind, containing mental things and events, continues to befog our understanding. 'What is fact?' 'Well, it's a concept.' Sounds like an answer, sounds impressively technical - but it explains absolutely nothing.

While you may reject certain views of the Analytic Tradition, you nevertheless their definition of what is fact, i.e. a feature of reality, that is the case, states of affairs or just-is that is independent of the individual's opinions, judgement, beliefs.
You have defined 'what is fact' countless times.
That is what Betti reject as 'fact'.

And I've shown why Betti is wrong to do so.

I on the other hand, accept 'what is fact' as something that is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC, i.e. not independent regardless of humans.

If Betti 'generally' says that a fact exists only within a language game, then that mistakes what we say for the way things are. And here's the point: it's as mistaken to deny facts, such as identity - sameness and difference - in reality, as it is to insist on linguistic identity in reality outside language. Both mistakes testify to the dazzling power of language - evident in the silliness of truth-maker/truth-bearer theory, and other correspondence theories of truth.

For example, the things we call cats and dogs and rocks and stones and trees are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them, and whether we say they're the same as or different from each other.

Yes, they are what they are in correspondence to the language games or FSERC.

Complete nonsense. You don't seem to understand the correspondence theory of truth. And the claim that cats, etc, are what they are only because they 'correspond' to a language game is laughable.

There is no way cats, dogs, rock and stones can exists as things-in-themselves without the relation to everything in the cosmos and human-beings.

This is mystical claptrap. 'Things can exist only in relation to everything else that exists.'

Philosophical anti-realism has been a fashionable dead end for many decades, with false but seductive premises that continue to sucker the unwary.

This is merely handwaving.
There are many types of philosophical anti-realism which oppose philosophical realism.
Philosophical anti-realism is the most effective supporting for the more advanced knowledge we have up to Quantum Physics, then cognitive neuroscience and various philosophies, e.g. morality.

False. Our knowledge is knowledge of reality, including knowledge of how our brains work, and of how reality can be explained increasingly successfully by quantum mechanics. Philosophical anti-realism can't account for this knowledge.

One critical element with philosophical anti-realism is it give some control of reality and destiny to humans instead of being at the mercy of something beyond and is uncontrollable.

Quite the opposite. Philosophical anti-realism denies there's any such thing as a reality that can be understood and controlled - let alone a moral reality.

With objective morality, we have some sort of fixed moral 'lighthouse' [objective moral elements] to guide moral progress and avoiding the rocks of moral life.

There are two completely different claims here.

1 There are moral facts.
2 If we think there are moral facts, and know what they are, we then have a lighthouse to guide moral progress.

You use the second claim to bulldoze through objections to the first. And that's simply untenable.

[phyllo]

Sure, but that's separate from the central issue here ... subjective morality.

Looks like end of the discussion of subjective morality has been reached.

To you, perhaps. From my frame of mind, however, each of us as individuals, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, comes to acquire a uniquely personal [subjective] assessment of morality over the course of actually living their life out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

The words 'personal' and 'subjective' have different meanings.

Sure, everyone has a personal assessment of morality.

Then the part where given new experiences, some will change their minds. For some [like me] over and over again.

That's called 'learning'.

On the other hand, many moral objectivists among us will argue that, God or No God, we do have access to, what, a universal morality?

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Okay, I don't deny that this is possible. Instead, I ask those who do believe this to take their own moral philosophy down out of the theoretical clouds [here] and, given a particular moral conflagration of note, explore with me the "for all practical implications" of their conclusions.

So you have said. I don't know why you feel the need to repeat it again. I do have a memory storage area in my body.

And especially for those who do not believe in God...how do they manage to sustain their interactions with others such that, when conflicts do occur, they are not fractured and fragmented?

Well, there are probably several explanations but you can start by looking at yourself.

You sustain interactions on these sites without having the slightest appearance of being fractured or fragmented. How do you do it?

[Harbal]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[phyllo]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

I mean it's possible to establish many standards of correct conduct.

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

None of those are some sort of 'driving facts' or 'driving properties' which which are floating around waiting to be discovered.

[Harbal]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

I mean it's possible to establish many standards of correct conduct.

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

None of those are some sort of 'driving facts' or 'driving properties' which which are floating around waiting to be discovered.

So if in any given community or society there is a commonly held set of moral standards that most members accept and agree with, you would categorise that as objectively based morality?

[Sculptor]

Taken from our friendly neighbourhood Philosophy Forum from a thread hoping to prove that the abortion povs were not diametrically opposed.

Showing how amusing is the idea or objective morality.

abbo.JPG (30.42 KiB) Viewed 120 times

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the Bible is 66 books...a library of different literary forms, composed by different authors, over a period of about a millennium and a half. And the "establishing" of any part of it has to happen by way of the appropriate test -- which is quite different for each kind of literary form. For example, a prophetic text is tested by its fulfillment. A doctrinal text is tested by its integrity with doctrine. Parables are tested by aptness. Wisdom literature is tested by its application to life. Poetry and songs are judged for both beauty and meaning. A historical account is tested by its consonance with historical facts. What "establishes" a part of that great 'library' is bound to depend on what part one is trying to verify.

So what are you wanting to verify or "establish," to use your term?

Let's start at the beginning. Which of the above is Genesis, and how have you established whatever it is you feel you have established?

If we want to start at the real beginning, the beginning of my "establishing" of things was the gospels, not Genesis. So do you want to start at the beginning of the book, or the beginning of what personally "established" me?

[Will Bouwman]

If we want to start at the real beginning, the beginning of my "establishing" of things was the gospels, not Genesis. So do you want to start at the beginning of the book, or the beginning of what personally "established" me?

Well, if you want to make this about you, go for it!