Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 264
  1. #221
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I will address any arguments that attempt to show that my argument in the OP is incorrect. Arguing that my OP is incomprehensible does not show that it is incorrect.
    I'm sorry, but showing that your argument is ill-defined is a rebuttal.

  2. #222
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm sorry, but showing that your argument is ill-defined is a rebuttal.
    To support that an argument is ill-defined, there must be an agreed-upon (or objective) standard for when an argument is indeed ill-defined. If the standard is subjective (it is "ill-defined" just because the person making the claim thinks that it is) then the standard is not valid nor is the argument that it's ill-defined.

    So before this position can have merit, we need to agree when an argument is indeed "ill-defined".

    I will, for example, agree that if NO ONE is able to make heads or tails of an argument, then it is ill-defined. Shall we accept that standard? If not, then what standard do you propose?

    ---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

    And quite simply, part of the problem is YOURS. For example.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    1. Your ever-changing definition of objective morality:
    OP - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them.
    Post 114 - Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which God whispers in people's ears.
    BOTH of these are examples of objective morality, not definitions. In the OPs example, I even say "for example". So I'm clearly forwarding examples and you are confusing them for definitions.

    So given that you misinterpret what I clearly communicate shows that you finding them ill-defined is, at least in part, your own fault and it's not a problem that has been shared by others in this thread.

    So I'll agree that you find my arguments "ill-defined" but I see no basis to agree that it's ill-defined in any objective sense or see the need to agree with your assessment.

  3. #223
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Mican, I have provided clear explanations using specific references to your posts, which show that your terms are ill-defined. The fact that others are not picking up on this and are finding other things to talk about based on their individual interests surrounding the question of morality is irrelevant.

    Question to opponent.
    Could you please confirm which definition of objective morality you'd like to use for your OP? You recently defined it as: "Specific moral positions [which] are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objectively true" (post #181). This definition does not include any objective source, and doesn't appear to require one.
    However, in post #281, you said that you've made your argument in the OP, indicating that the OP's definition should be used: "Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them."

    Question to opponent.
    Could you please confirm whether objective morality and subjective morality preclude each other (ie: only one can possibly exist, or "morality" itself is either objective or subjective)?
    You've repeatedly flip-flopped on this, clearly stating that they don't preclude each other, but then (sometimes even in the very same post) making statements based/relying on language which implies/requires them to be preclusive.

    ---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    BOTH of these are examples of objective morality, not definitions. In the OPs example, I even say "for example". So I'm clearly forwarding examples and you are confusing them for definitions.
    The OP clearly states that what it offers is a definition of objective morality.
    Further, by providing examples of what you are referring to as objective morality, you are including those examples in the scope of your definition, therefore I reject your assertion that the two should be separated.

  4. #224
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Mican, I have provided clear explanations using specific references to your posts, which show that your terms are ill-defined.
    Until we have an agreed-upon standard of when an argument qualifies as "ill-defined", there is no basis to argue that my arguments are ill-defined and I reject all claims that my arguments are ill-defined.

    Don't make the claim again until we have established what ill-defined means. At this point you seem to be defining it as whatever you don't understand and that is not an acceptable standard.

    And if you don't understand something, the correct course of action is to ask me to clarify, not try to use your misunderstanding as a mode of attack. And I see that you have asked questions for clarification. That's good (sincerely).

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Question to opponent.
    Could you please confirm which definition of objective morality you'd like to use for your OP? You recently defined it as: "Specific moral positions [which] are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objectively true" (post #181). This definition does not include any objective source, and doesn't appear to require one.
    However, in post #281, you said that you've made your argument in the OP, indicating that the OP's definition should be used: "Objective morality is made up of pronouncements which are forwarded by God, and people are always correct if they follow them."
    There is no post 281

    Again, you seem to be confusing statements I made about objective morality with the definition of objective morality. The OPs definition is: "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow."

    I have said other things about objective morality but those are not necessarily part of the definition. The only time that you have basis to think that I've contradicted myself is if I say something that specifically contradicts what I said in the OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Question to opponent.
    Could you please confirm whether objective morality and subjective morality preclude each other (ie: only one can possibly exist, or "morality" itself is either objective or subjective)?
    You've repeatedly flip-flopped on this, clearly stating that they don't preclude each other, but then (sometimes even in the very same post) making statements based/relying on language which implies/requires them to be preclusive.[COLOR="Silver"]
    This confusion is more legitimate because it kind of is both ways.

    There is the nature of morality in which it can be only one or the other (is morality objective or subjective) but then even if morality is ultimately objective, people can still have their own opinions and therefore subjective morality does exist alongside objective morality.

    But even in this rather confusing case, my overall argument still stands. If objective morality exists and people likewise create their own subjective morals, objective morality is superior (per the OPs argument).

    But to stick with one answer, there can be both objective and subjective morality at the same time so they don't preclude each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The OP clearly states that what it offers is a definition of objective morality.
    Further, by providing examples of what you are referring to as objective morality, you are including those examples in the scope of your definition, therefore I reject your assertion that the two should be separated.
    "under the scope of the definition" is not the same as "the definition". So you were wrong when claiming that I said God whispering in someone's ear IS a definition of objective morality that I provided

    Punching someone is under the scope of the definition of violence, but it's not the definition of violence. So a good rule of thumb is unless I specifically say "definition" in the sentence I am not forwarding something as a definition.

    So now I've cleared up some of your confusion. God whispering in someone's ear is not the definition of objective morality.

    ---------------------------

    So now that I've hopefully cleared up some of the confusion, are you going to debate the position of the OP? I guarantee that trying to defeat my argument by claiming that you don't understand it isn't going to get anywhere.
    Last edited by mican333; September 7th, 2017 at 09:33 AM.

  5. #225
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Until we have an agreed-upon standard of when an argument qualifies as "ill-defined", there is no basis to argue that my arguments are ill-defined and I reject all claims that my arguments are ill-defined.
    "ill-defined" has a simple and easy to understand definition: "not having a clear description or limits; vague". Therefore, there is no requirement to agree upon a standard, since any description which is unclear qualifies as being ill-defined. I have demonstrated, using examples from your posts how your definition is unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if you don't understand something, the correct course of action is to ask me to clarify, not try to use your misunderstanding as a mode of attack. And I see that you have asked questions for clarification. That's good (sincerely).
    So, because I didn't explicitly add the question tag to all those times when I pointed out the issues with your definitions being unclear, you just treated those as merely attack-mode misunderstandings not worthy of clarification?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, you seem to be confusing statements I made about objective morality with the definition of objective morality. The OPs definition is: "There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow."
    I've repeatedly provided you with break-downs of how the statements you've made about morality have directly followed threads of our exchange where the definition has been in question. And again, as with the point I made about your examples being provided within the scope of your definition, the two cannot be separated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have said other things about objective morality but those are not necessarily part of the definition. The only time that you have basis to think that I've contradicted myself is if I say something that specifically contradicts what I said in the OP.
    In post # 181 you literally said:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    You said this in response to my specific comment that your definition of objective morality is incoherent.
    Since your "objective morality means" defines objective morality simply as specific moral positions that are objectively correct, the statement specifically contradicts what you said in the OP, because based on that statement anyone could have a specific moral position which is objectively correct, and no objective source is required. Your OP's definition holds that an objective source is required. Is it? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is the nature of morality in which it can be only one or the other (is morality objective or subjective) but then even if morality is ultimately objective, people can still have their own opinions and therefore subjective morality does exist alongside objective morality.
    This sentence is self-contradictory. You say it can only be one or the other, but in the same sentence say they can exist alongside one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But even in this rather confusing case, my overall argument still stands. If objective morality exists and people likewise create their own subjective morals, objective morality is superior (per the OPs argument).
    Again, it depends on how we define objective morality, which you have already contradicted yourself on. If there's an objective source and objective morality is simply that source's pronouncements, then that's all it is - some source's pronouncements, and there's no justification other than your opinion that it should be considered "correct" or "superior".
    If you say that there's an objective source which nebulously "created" objective morality, then this is currently ill-defined, since simply saying something exists because it was created says nothing about what it actually is (are they principles, opinions, rules, laws, physical attributes, facts about reality?), and the definition is unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But to stick with one answer, there can be both objective and subjective morality at the same time so they don't preclude each other.
    Then all we have is different types of morality without any being "correct". If you then claim that the objective morality is correct because the objective morals would be facts just like other facts about the physical universe, then this must be explained, and saying that "they're facts because they are created by the objective source just as the universe is created" is not an explanation. Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't know, but it could be this".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Punching someone is under the scope of the definition of violence, but it's not the definition of violence.
    If someone makes a statement under the scope of a definition which contradicts the definition, then the statement by its very nature must be considered together with the definition, especially if it infers a different definition. Example, if I define "gogulmogul" as "something I made", and later give an example of "gogulmogul" as "I told one to my friend in confidence", the definition of "gogulmogul" must be re-evaluated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I guarantee that trying to defeat my argument by claiming that you don't understand it isn't going to get anywhere.
    Please indicate where I have claimed that I don't understand your argument. Your attempts to skew the facts around the nature of this thread are dishonest and really don't help the discussion at all.

    On a side note, regardless of the fact that your terms are ill-defined, you have repeatedly based the superiority of the "correct" alternative on the claim that proponents of it would have some advantage. Could you elaborate on what that advantage would be?
    For instance, based on what you're saying, proponents of objective morality could possibly be "correct" at this very moment. Could you provide an example of how the claimed superiority or advantage actually manifests itself?

  6. #226
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "ill-defined" has a simple and easy to understand definition: "not having a clear description or limits; vague". Therefore, there is no requirement to agree upon a standard, since any description which is unclear qualifies as being ill-defined. I have demonstrated, using examples from your posts how your definition is unclear.
    But "unclear" itself is a vague term. Any definition can always be detailed further and therefore made more clear. So before one can say that an argument is too unclear to be valid, there needs to be an acceptable standard of clarity. And that standard cannot be left solely to the person who doesn't think it's clear enough. I mean if I were debating with a complete idiot (and I am in no way saying that you are an idiot - this is just an example), I might never be able to explain a complex concept clearly enough for him to understand and the problem is not my ability to make a generally coherent argument.

    So no, there does need to be a standard beyond one's subjective standard for there to be a determination of what's too vague or too ill-defined.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In post # 181 you literally said:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    You said this in response to my specific comment that your definition of objective morality is incoherent.
    Since your "objective morality means" defines objective morality simply as specific moral positions that are objectively correct, the statement specifically contradicts what you said in the OP, because based on that statement anyone could have a specific moral position which is objectively correct, and no objective source is required.
    Show me where I said that no objective source is required. And even if I did say it later in the thread, then I retract it. So that clears that up. An objective source is required.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it depends on how we define objective morality, which you have already contradicted yourself on. If there's an objective source and objective morality is simply that source's pronouncements, then that's all it is - some source's pronouncements, and there's no justification other than your opinion that it should be considered "correct" or "superior".
    The definition of the OP does not say "pronouncement" so your argument is a straw-man.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you say that there's an objective source which nebulously "created" objective morality, then this is currently ill-defined, since simply saying something exists because it was created says nothing about what it actually is (are they principles, opinions, rules, laws, physical attributes, facts about reality?), and the definition is unclear.
    But you have not shown that it's unclear in a way that hurts my argument.

    How much detail one can ask for is practically limitless so an argument does not fail for not having a certain amount of detail unless that amount of detail is necessary for the argument's validity. You have not shown that I'm missing a detail that I need.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then all we have is different types of morality without any being "correct". If you then claim that the objective morality is correct because the objective morals would be facts just like other facts about the physical universe, then this must be explained, and saying that "they're facts because they are created by the objective source just as the universe is created" is not an explanation. Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't know, but it could be this".
    But then I'm not claiming that objective morality is actually correct so this is not a problem. My argument only forwards the existence of objective morality hypothetically and does not attempt to argue that it actually exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If someone makes a statement under the scope of a definition which contradicts the definition, then the statement by its very nature must be considered together with the definition, especially if it infers a different definition.
    But then my "for example" does not contradict the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please indicate where I have claimed that I don't understand your argument. Your attempts to skew the facts around the nature of this thread are dishonest and really don't help the discussion at all.
    Don't make personal attacks by calling me dishonest. And you said numerous times that my argument is incoherent. Something incoherent is something that one does not understand. So by saying that my argument is incoherent, you are indicating that you don't understand it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    On a side note, regardless of the fact that your terms are ill-defined, you have repeatedly based the superiority of the "correct" alternative on the claim that proponents of it would have some advantage. Could you elaborate on what that advantage would be?
    For instance, based on what you're saying, proponents of objective morality could possibly be "correct" at this very moment. Could you provide an example of how the claimed superiority or advantage actually manifests itself?
    Sure. Let's say, hypothetically, that thievery is objectively morally wrong. Those who know that will be in a better position if it ever comes to having to make a decision on whether to steal or not compared to those who think that whether thievery is wrong or not is just a matter of human perception. If it's a fact that punishment awaits wrong action in the afterlife even if one escapes worldly punishment in this life, knowing this would be a good thing for a person

  7. #227
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Thank you for your interesting post. I will get to answering your questions to the best of my ability in between my debate on another site. This may take a week or so. It will probably be best to answer your post bit by bit in order to concentrating on the challenge of this debate.

    Peter

  8. #228
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Thank you for your interesting post. I will get to answering your questions to the best of my ability in between my debate on another site. This may take a week or so. It will probably be best to answer your post bit by bit in order to concentrating on the challenge of this debate.

    Peter
    I look forward to hearing from you

  9. #229
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But "unclear" itself is a vague term. Any definition can always be detailed further and therefore made more clear. So before one can say that an argument is too unclear to be valid, there needs to be an acceptable standard of clarity. And that standard cannot be left solely to the person who doesn't think it's clear enough.
    First, it's not about being "clear enough". I've explained that your definitions aren't clear, period. Second, the standard is based on the definitions and arguments themselves. So since I've provided specific posts of yours which contradict each other, or point out why your definitions are contradictory, then this is the standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean if I were debating with a complete idiot (and I am in no way saying that you are an idiot - this is just an example), I might never be able to explain a complex concept clearly enough for him to understand and the problem is not my ability to make a generally coherent argument.
    This point is irrelevant, since if you were debating with a complete idiot, that person would not be able to provide explanations about why your OP is ill-defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So no, there does need to be a standard beyond one's subjective standard for there to be a determination of what's too vague or too ill-defined.
    There's nothing subjective about providing specific examples from your own posts showing why your OP is ill-defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Show me where I said that no objective source is required.
    Did you not read the post you responded to with this? Here it is again:
    In post # 181 you literally said:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    You said this in response to my specific comment that your definition of objective morality is incoherent.
    You even added the statement directly after that of: "If you think I'm saying something else, then you don't understand what I'm saying."
    Therefore, your statement of "objective morality means" literally defines objective morality. The definition "specific moral positions that are objectively correct" directly contradicts what you said in the OP, because anyone could have a specific moral position which is objectively correct, and no objective source is required.

    So, we yet again have conflicting definitions provided by you for objective morality and what it is. This last definition of yours, which you have now retracted, I could actually agree with, since it is coherent and aligns with how our secular moral system currently works. But you have retracted that and maintain that an objective source is required.
    Question to opponent.Is it? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The definition of the OP does not say "pronouncement" so your argument is a straw-man.
    I already explained to you how your OP defines objective morality as pronouncements in post # 170. Your only response to this was that saying objective morality is defined as pronouncements was really only just an example of how god can forward a moral position. But again, going back to the point about examples being within the scope of the definition, if the examples you provide contradict each other, then the definition is incoherent.
    Let's say I defined "gogulmogul" as "something I did" and gave an example of "I told my friend a gogulmogul in confidence", the example and definition go fairly well together, and you have a fairly clear picture of what a gogulmogul is. But then when you started asking questions to clarify gogulmogul, and I gave an alternative example of "I made a gogulmogul in my kitchen". And then later I gave the example of "gogulmogul means something that people understand about reality". Now what a gogulmogul is and how it's defined is unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you have not shown that it's unclear in a way that hurts my argument.
    I'm sorry you don't understand the problem as it has been explained to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I'm not claiming that objective morality is actually correct so this is not a problem.
    No, again, as I already stated, you're claiming that if objective morality existed it would be correct because the objective morals would be facts just like other facts about the physical universe, without explaining or providing support for how they would be facts - just claiming that they would.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then my "for example" does not contradict the definition.
    See "gogulmogul" above. "Something I said to someone", "something I made in my kitchen", and "something people understand about reality" are contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Don't make personal attacks by calling me dishonest. And you said numerous times that my argument is incoherent. Something incoherent is something that one does not understand. So by saying that my argument is incoherent, you are indicating that you don't understand it.
    Your words were: "claiming that you don't understand". I didn't once claim that I didn't understand - I provided specific references to your posts and explained why your argument is incoherent. Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear". It's specifically and only regarding the nature of the content itself, and has nothing to do with the recipient(s) of the content.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Sure. Let's say, hypothetically, that thievery is objectively morally wrong. Those who know that will be in a better position if it ever comes to having to make a decision on whether to steal or not compared to those who think that whether thievery is wrong or not is just a matter of human perception. If it's a fact that punishment awaits wrong action in the afterlife even if one escapes worldly punishment in this life, knowing this would be a good thing for a person
    First, "those who think that whether thievery is wrong or not is just a matter of human perception" would still be objectively correct that theft is wrong. So, going back to your round earth scenario, we now have the guy who knows the earth is round because he experienced what he believes was divine revelation, and the guy who thinks that the earth is round because of "human perception" (ie: science and rational justification based on observed facts). They both have the advantage because they're both correct.
    Second, if you're saying that the advantage is around avoiding the after-life punishment, then this advantage would require more than just holding to what would be the objectively true moral position of "theft is wrong". It would require that one also believe in the specific objective moral source, all of its other specific objective moral positions, and whatever else that objective source requires in order for a person to avoid punishment.
    So if "theft is wrong" is objectively true in the same way, as you claim without explanation or support, as physical facts about reality, then the people who agree with that aren't guaranteed the advantage you provided. Is there any other advantage those people would have which actually manifests in the real world?

    Further, you implied that believing punishment awaits theft in the afterlife provides an advantage. However, if we're talking about the Christian deity, then there is no guarantee of punishment for theft, since the thief can be saved before death, and theft would as a result be committed upon innocents without any punishment or justice served.
    This advantage is also subject to all the other requirements set by that deity, as I mentioned above. So again, there's no guaranteed advantage to the person who correctly holds that theft is wrong because a deity said so.

    Also, I'd like to point out that we have fairly good evidence that simply being told "you shouldn't do X because a deity said X is wrong" is much less effective at creating moral societies than providing an actual understanding of why one shouldn't do X and why X is wrong based on the real-world tangible consequences of doing X.

    Finally, your example advantage is in many ways just a round-about way of expressing Pascal's Wager. Do you not have any examples of an actual advantage and how it actually manifests in the real world?
    After all, if the only advantage is claimed to be in the afterlife, and no benefit is actually garnered in the real-world lives of the societies subject to the objective morality, then it seems quite pointless to even offer any morality which applies to real-world lives if those lives aren't made any better by it. That's kind of the point of morality, isn't it? Otherwise, all you're talking about is a system rules that we have to follow because we just have to follow them (again, without any rational justification for any of it), and not because they're actually good or provide any benefit.
    Last edited by futureboy; September 8th, 2017 at 06:38 AM.

  10. #230
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    First, it's not about being "clear enough". I've explained that your definitions aren't clear, period.
    No, not "period". You are the only person in this thread who has complained that they are not clear enough so they are not clear enough for you. Everyone else finds them clear enough to respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Second, the standard is based on the definitions and arguments themselves. So since I've provided specific posts of yours which contradict each other, or point out why your definitions are contradictory, then this is the standard.
    The ONLY definition I have provided in the OP. Everywhere else I've said things about objective morality but was not attempting to provide another definition. From what I can tell (and can support in certain circumstances) that you are taking what I've said about OM and considering THAT to be another definition, which it is not. So at least in part, the reason that you think I'm providing contradictory definitions is because you are confused on what statements of mine are intended to be definitions.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This point is irrelevant, since if you were debating with a complete idiot, that person would not be able to provide explanations about why your OP is ill-defined.
    Okay. And remember, the ONLY definition I've provided is in the OP so if I said something contradictory afterwards, that does not effect the clarity of the OP but instead the problem is that I've allegedly made arguments that don't correspond to how I originally defined OM (objective morality). So you can't use supposed contradictions in later posts as the basis of the supposed lack of clarity in the definition.

    So given that, how is the OP ill-defined?




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Did you not read the post you responded to with this? Here it is again:
    In post # 181 you literally said:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    You said this in response to my specific comment that your definition of objective morality is incoherent.
    You even added the statement directly after that of: "If you think I'm saying something else, then you don't understand what I'm saying."
    Therefore, your statement of "objective morality means" literally defines objective morality. The definition "specific moral positions that are objectively correct" directly contradicts what you said in the OP, because anyone could have a specific moral position which is objectively correct, and no objective source is required.
    If there is no objective source of morality, then no one can forward a moral position that is objectively correct as objective morals cannot exist without an external source.

    And besides that, the thing I posted after the OP is not a definition. There is a difference between providing a definition of something and saying other things about that something. So not everything I say about OM is a new definition. This is why you THINK I'm providing contradictory definitions - you are confusing statements about OM with other definitions. Again, the ONLY definition I provided in the OP.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I already explained to you how your OP defines objective morality as pronouncements in post # 170. Your only response to this was that saying objective morality is defined as pronouncements was really only just an example of how god can forward a moral position. But again, going back to the point about examples being within the scope of the definition, if the examples you provide contradict each other, then the definition is incoherent.
    And the example does not contradict the definition. Pronouncements ARE a way to "forward" something so it is a valid, non-contradictory example. And another example of forwarding is to "create".



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, again, as I already stated, you're claiming that if objective morality existed it would be correct because the objective morals would be facts just like other facts about the physical universe, without explaining or providing support for how they would be facts - just claiming that they would.
    Since I assume that anyone who reads my post understands that something that is objectively true is, by definition, factual I didn't think I needed to explain further. If you want to challenge this in some way please directly state what you think I've gotten wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your words were: "claiming that you don't understand". I didn't once claim that I didn't understand - I provided specific references to your posts and explained why your argument is incoherent. Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear".
    And if one finds something incomprehensible or confusing, that means that they don't understand it. And if you DO understand it, then you should be responding to the argument you understand instead of complaining about it being unclear. If you understand it, then respond to it with something other than a complaint about how it's difficult to understand on some level.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    First, "those who think that whether thievery is wrong or not is just a matter of human perception" would still be objectively correct that theft is wrong. So, going back to your round earth scenario, we now have the guy who knows the earth is round because he experienced what he believes was divine revelation, and the guy who thinks that the earth is round because of "human perception" (ie: science and rational justification based on observed facts). They both have the advantage because they're both correct.
    Degrees of certainty matter. Going back to the shape of the Earth scenario, if one has the option of investing in an expedition around the world, how much they will invest is directly tied to how certain they are that the ship will not sail off the edge of the Earth. The person who KNOWS the Earth is round will, all else being equal, be willing to invest more money because he is more certain that the expedition will be successful.

    Likewise a person who KNOW that thievery is objectively immoral is less likely to compromise on his anti-theft morals than someone who just thinks that it's wrong. There are certainly gray areas when it comes to thievery (such as the "steal a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family" scenario) and if it so happens that objectively, there can be no compromise, then that person is more likely to take the "correct" action than one who just holds a personal stance against thievery which can be overridden by other concerns.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Second, this advantage requires more than just holding to the objectively true moral position of "theft is wrong". It requires that one also believes in the specific objective moral source and all of its specific objective moral positions, and whatever else that objective source requires.
    No it doesn't. Having that additional information will increase the chances of one making a correct moral choice but just the knowledge that thievery is objectively wrong will decrease the odds of one committing thievery and therefore avoiding whatever consequence come from breaking objective moral law.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So if "theft is wrong" is objectively true in the same way, as you claim without explanation or support, as physical facts about reality, then the people who agree with that aren't guaranteed the advantage you provided.
    Yes, they are. They are less likely to commit the act that is objectively immoral.

    And for the record, hypothetical situations do not require explanation or support so bringing that up is a red herring.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Further, you implied that believing punishment awaits theft in the afterlife provides an advantage. However, if we're talking about the Christian deity, then there is no guarantee of punishment for theft, since the thief can be saved before death, and theft would as a result be committed upon innocents without any punishment or justice served.
    True. But then they would instead have the advantage of knowing that it's an objective fact that one can be saved from punishment by whatever one does to be saved so they would have a big advantage over those who don't understand that particular objective moral position.

    To be clear, I'm not defending that concept in general but just pointing out that if that were true, those that know the "truth" would have a personal advantage over those who don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This advantage is also subject to all the other requirements set by that deity, as I mentioned above.
    Only if that was the specific scenario was true which is not necessarily the case if objective morality actually exists. Regardless, the more one knows the more advantage they have. If one knows only 1% of the truth, they have an advantage over those who know 0%.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Finally, your example advantage is in many ways just a round-about way of expressing Pascal's Wager.
    If I were presenting this as a reason to believe in objective morality, it would be. But I'm making no such argument. I've never argue that objective morality IS actually better than subjective morality. It's only better IF it's true and I don't claim that it's actually true. So no, I'm not engaging in Pascal's wager.

    And the other half of my original argument is that if morality is subjective (as in there is no external source of morality) then subjective morality is superior to objective morality and it's for pretty much the same reason - those who know the truth have an advantage. For example, let's go to the "steal a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family" dilemma. If someone knows that there is no external source of morality that says that stealing is objective wrong then they don't need to factor that into their decision and therefore won't be factoring in wrong information when deciding whether they should or should not feed their family with stolen bread.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Do you not have any examples of an actual advantage and how it actually manifests in the real world?
    Since I don't argue that objective morality actually exists, of course I cannot point to any real-world advantages caused by objective morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    After all, if the only advantage is claimed to be in the afterlife, and no benefit is actually garnered in the real-world lives of the societies subject to the objective morality, then it seems quite pointless to even offer any morality which applies to real-world lives if those lives aren't made any better by it. That's kind of the point of morality, isn't it? Otherwise, all you're talking about is a system rules that we have to follow because we just have to follow them (again, without any rational justification for any of it), and not because they're actually good or provide any benefit.
    That assumes that the objective morals, if they exist, do not have any visible real-world benefit. If objective morality exists, it could be that the primary reason that we humans are against murder is because it's objectively wrong even if we don't know that the ultimate source of these morals have an objective source. Just because one fails to recognize the ultimate source of morality does not mean that it doesn't have a positive effect on the world.

    And I'm presenting what's above as a hypothetical.

  11. #231
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, not "period". You are the only person in this thread who has complained that they are not clear enough so they are not clear enough for you. Everyone else finds them clear enough to respond.
    Again, the fact that others are not picking up on this and are finding other things to talk about which are based on their individual interests surrounding the question of morality is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Everywhere else I've said things about objective morality but was not attempting to provide another definition. From what I can tell (and can support in certain circumstances) that you are taking what I've said about OM and considering THAT to be another definition, which it is not. So at least in part, the reason that you think I'm providing contradictory definitions is because you are confused on what statements of mine are intended to be definitions.
    Mican, I just provided you with a clear demonstration of how the thing you said was in response to specific comments about issues with your definition and therefore offered as a definition. Here it is again:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    You said this in response to my specific comment that your definition of objective morality is incoherent.
    You even added the statement directly after that of: "If you think I'm saying something else, then you don't understand what I'm saying."

    Reading back, there is even another post (# 163) where you similarly responded to my specific comment that the definition is incoherent with another "objective morality means":
    "In other words, objective morality means that certain moral positions are factually accurate in the same way that it's factually accurate that the Earth is round. I have explained a method on how this can occur."

    When responding to comments about issues with your definitions, you have responded twice with statements that contradict your previous definitions. Seriously, how does responding to issues with your definition not have anything to do with the definition?
    Look, it's really simple:
    1. You - OM is defined as ABC
    2. Me - That doesn't make sense because of issue I
    3. You - (in response to I) OM means XYZ
    4. Me - XYZ is different from ABC, please provide a coherent definition for OM
    5. You - When I said "OM means XYZ", it wasn't intended as a definition for OM
    6. Me - When you responded to I, the issue with OM's definition of ABC, you made the statement "OM means XYZ".

    Question to opponent.So, again, is an objective source in the form of a deity required for any facts about morality to be objectively true? If so, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If there is no objective source of morality, then no one can forward a moral position that is objectively correct as objective morals cannot exist without an external source.
    You have not supported that the moral positions require an objective source in order for them to be objectively correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the example does not contradict the definition. Pronouncements ARE a way to "forward" something so it is a valid, non-contradictory example. And another example of forwarding is to "create".
    Then you are misusing the word "forward", which is yet another issue with your argument's incoherent definitions. To "forward" something never means to create it, but to pass on something from elsewhere, or to help promote something. Please provide a coherent definition of "objective morality" for your OP, which explains what it is, and not just where it comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Degrees of certainty matter. Going back to the shape of the Earth scenario, if one has the option of investing in an expedition around the world, how much they will invest is directly tied to how certain they are that the ship will not sail off the edge of the Earth. The person who KNOWS the Earth is round will, all else being equal, be willing to invest more money because he is more certain that the expedition will be successful.
    Unfortunately, since such endeavours are not one-man operations, the degree of rationally justified certainty is what matters, not simply that one guy claims he KNOWS with absolute certainty. So the advantage goes to the expedition with the most justified certainty that the earth is round.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Likewise a person who KNOW that thievery is objectively immoral is less likely to compromise on his anti-theft morals than someone who just thinks that it's wrong.
    Please support your assertion that they're less likely to compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There are certainly gray areas when it comes to thievery (such as the "steal a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family" scenario) and if it so happens that objectively, there can be no compromise, then that person is more likely to take the "correct" action than one who just holds a personal stance against thievery which can be overridden by other concerns.
    Again, please support your assertion that they're more likely to take the correct action. People who steal to feed their families don't compromise because their adherence to the moral (if they hold it) is weaker or stronger, they do it because feeding their family is more important to them than avoiding the possible consequences of stealing. Also, if it's the Christian religion, then the person holding to the "correct" objective moral can just repent afterwards and theft will have been committed with no justice or punishment, so one could jussay the thief is actually more likely to commit theft.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No it doesn't. Having that additional information will increase the chances of one making a correct moral choice but just the knowledge that thievery is objectively wrong will decrease the odds of one committing thievery and therefore avoiding whatever consequence come from breaking objective moral law.
    This would make sense if there were varying degrees of punishment. But in our hypothetical, there aren't, so to avoid the consequence of breaking the law against theft, the thief can't simply refrain from stealing, but must also believe in the specific objective moral source and all of its specific objective moral positions, and whatever else that objective source requires.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes, they are. They are less likely to commit the act that is objectively immoral.
    Please support his assertion. Again, for them to avoid the consequences of breaking any one law, they must avoid breaking all the laws, as well as believe in the specific objective moral source, and fulfill any other requirements that objective source has. What are they? Who knows?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    True. But then they would instead have the advantage of knowing that it's an objective fact that one can be saved from punishment by whatever one does to be saved so they would have a big advantage over those who don't understand that particular objective moral position.
    To be clear, I'm not defending that concept in general but just pointing out that if that were true, those that know the "truth" would have a personal advantage over those who don't know.
    So the only advantage you can offer is personal, and not to the society? Doesn't that go against the point of any moral system?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Only if that was the specific scenario was true which is not necessarily the case if objective morality actually exists. Regardless, the more one knows the more advantage they have. If one knows only 1% of the truth, they have an advantage over those who know 0%.
    Again, in our scenario we're talking about God as the objective source. Further, what advantage is there if a person can't know whether they're right about one moral vs. another. Theft is wrong, but stoning unruly children isn't, so again, since there are no varying degrees of punishment, the person would have to know 100% of the objective morals to be able to avoid it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If I were presenting this as a reason to believe in objective morality, it would be. But I'm making no such argument. I've never argue that objective morality IS actually better than subjective morality. It's only better IF it's true and I don't claim that it's actually true. So no, I'm not engaging in Pascal's wager.
    The issues with Pascal's Wager apply here, however, most importantly the false dichotomy. To be able to gain any advantage required to make objective morality better requires that the person holding to it is 100% correct about the specific objective source, all of its objective morals, and all its other requirements. Even if it would be correct, how is it rational to consider it better when there's no guarantee that anyone would garner any advantage, instead being very likely to be wrong about many parts of it and be punished as a result?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since I don't argue that objective morality actually exists, of course I cannot point to any real-world advantages caused by objective morality.
    No, you argue that it could exist and be correct. So, since you think it could exist, even right now, do you think there are any advantages that are manifested right now?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That assumes that the objective morals, if they exist, do not have any visible real-world benefit.
    So, if they existed, would they have real-world benefits? Aren't the real-world benefits what's actually important when evaluating moral systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If objective morality exists, it could be that the primary reason that we humans are against murder is because it's objectively wrong even if we don't know that the ultimate source of these morals have an objective source.
    In that scenario, the people/society who are against murder purely for personal reasons would be on the same ground as those who are against murder because they inherently feel it from an objective source. They both get the benefit of having less murder, and they're both going to be punished for not knowing the rest of the 99.9999% of what the objective source requires.

  12. #232
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the fact that others are not picking up on this and are finding other things to talk about which are based on their individual interests surrounding the question of morality is irrelevant.
    No it's not. If others don't find the OP ill-defined that means that whether it is ill-defined is up to the individual respondent. You THINK it's ill-defined and others do not think that it is. So basically you are stating your opinion, not a fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Mican, I just provided you with a clear demonstration of how the thing you said was in response to specific comments about issues with your definition and therefore offered as a definition. Here it is again:
    "Objective morality means that specific moral positions are objectively correct in the same fashion that other things that are objective true."
    THAT IS NOT A DEFINITION. Every little thing that a person may say about something does not become part of the definition. When one actually says something along the lines of "this is the definition" then they are forwarding a definition. And in the OP ONLY I forwarded definitions - no where else in this thread are definitions present.

    So the supposed "contradiction" is based on your mistakenly thinking that something I said about OM is also a definition. But now that it's clear that that is not the case, your accusations of inconsistent or contradictory definitions have been settled. This response covers all further accusations based on you calling other statements "definitions".



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You have not supported that the moral positions require an objective source in order for them to be objectively correct.
    So you are challenging that objective morals require an objective source? Can I appeal to the plainly obvious for support?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then you are misusing the word "forward", which is yet another issue with your argument's incoherent definitions. To "forward" something never means to create it, but to pass on something from elsewhere, or to help promote something. Please provide a coherent definition of "objective morality" for your OP, which explains what it is, and not just where it comes from.
    But forwarding is necessary as in a moral position must be given to people in order for them to have the option of adhering to it or rejecting it. And in the case of God, the morals that he forward are the ones that God created so creation is a part of it. And likewise I do consider a pronouncement to be adequate for objective morality. If a being knows the objective moral truth, regardless of whether the truth is of his creation or he learns of it, he is objectively correct when he tells people of the truth so their only options are to agree with his pronouncements (which are true) or disagree and be incorrect.

    So "forwarding" is what I mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Unfortunately, since such endeavours are not one-man operations, the degree of rationally justified certainty is what matters, not simply that one guy claims he KNOWS with absolute certainty. So the advantage goes to the expedition with the most justified certainty that the earth is round.
    Which means the person who is objectively certain that the earth is round has the advantage over the man who is not objectively certain. He has the most justified certainty (in his own mind).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please support your assertion that they're less likely to compromise.
    If you not only thought thievery was wrong but also KNEW that consequences await you in the afterlife for being a thief, you would be less likely to commit that crime than someone who doesn't think that such a consequence awaits them. You have additional incentive to not steal.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This would make sense if there were varying degrees of punishment. But in our hypothetical, there aren't, so to avoid the consequence of breaking the law against theft, the thief can't simply refrain from stealing, but must also believe in the specific objective moral source and all of its specific objective moral positions, and whatever else that objective source requires.
    That is part of one particular religion. It is not part of objective morality in general and therefore is a red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please support his assertion. Again, for them to avoid the consequences of breaking any one law, they must avoid breaking all the laws, as well as believe in the specific objective moral source, and fulfill any other requirements that objective source has.
    None of this is inherent in objective morality. You are basically introducing a bunch of red herrings. If one KNOW that thievery is objectively wrong but knows nothing else regarding objective morality, they have an advantage in that particular way. As far as all of the other issues go, everyone is equal so it doesn't counter-act the one advantage that he does have.

    So the only advantage you can offer is personal, and not to the society? Doesn't that go against the point of any moral system?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, in our scenario we're talking about God as the objective source. Further, what advantage is there if a person can't know whether they're right about one moral vs. another. Theft is wrong, but stoning unruly children isn't, so again, since there are no varying degrees of punishment, the person would have to know 100% of the objective morals to be able to avoid it.
    If one can avoid 5% of a punishment, they have an advantage over the person who can't avoid any of it.

    And quite simply, you are deviating from my scenario. I did not introduce all of the Christian God stuff. My scenario is just about stealing when one knows that stealing is objectively wrong. Everything else is irrelevant to my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The issues with Pascal's Wager apply here, however, most importantly the false dichotomy. To be able to gain any advantage required to make objective morality better requires that the person holding to it is 100% correct about the specific objective source, all of its objective morals, and all its other requirements.
    Support or retract this assertion. If you are referring to the Christian theology, then you are going off-topic as my scenario was not about that. If you are not referring to the Christian theology, then I see no reason why avoiding stealing when it is indeed punishable in the afterlife doesn't give one an advantage over those who aren't so concerned about the consequences of stealing.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Even if it would be correct, how is it rational to consider it better when there's no guarantee that anyone would garner any advantage, instead being very likely to be wrong about many parts of it and be punished as a result?
    That is not part of my scenario. I am referring to thievery ONLY and "other parts" are irrelevant. If you are arguing against Christian theology, then you are not addressing my argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, you argue that it could exist and be correct. So, since you think it could exist, even right now, do you think there are any advantages that are manifested right now?
    If they exist and people are adhering to them because of that, then there are real-world advantages such as people having an additional incentive to follow objective correct morals.

    So, if they existed, would they have real-world benefits? Aren't the real-world benefits what's actually important when evaluating moral systems?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In that scenario, the people/society who are against murder purely for personal reasons would be on the same ground as those who are against murder because they inherently feel it from an objective source. They both get the benefit of having less murder, and they're both going to be punished for not knowing the rest of the 99.9999% of what the objective source requires.
    That's not necessarily true. What if "Don't murder" is the ONLY objective moral position forwarded by God and God doesn't really care what we do beyond that? Then not murdering is all we need to do to avoid punishment.

    And that doesn't really address the advantage I was referring to anyway. I'm saying that the primary reason we don't murder could be because murder is objective wrong even if many of us don't recognize the source of morality. In other words, what you think is just your opinion about murder is actually based on the objective moral position regarding murder (hypothetically).

  13. #233
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No it's not. If others don't find the OP ill-defined that means that whether it is ill-defined is up to the individual respondent. You THINK it's ill-defined and others do not think that it is. So basically you are stating your opinion, not a fact.
    Support or retract that I have stated that I think it's ill-defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the supposed "contradiction" is based on your mistakenly thinking that something I said about OM is also a definition.
    Wow, you still won't acknowledge that twice, in response to criticism about your definition, you made statements of "objective morality means", and still try to put it on my mistaken thinking...
    Seriously dude, your penchant for blaming any issues with the way you've expressed yourself on someone else's misunderstanding is getting quite annoying. That you keep falling back on "but, others are engaging in the debate" only makes it worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you are challenging that objective morals require an objective source? Can I appeal to the plainly obvious for support?
    Support it however you want. You're the one claiming that the objective morals would be just like facts about reality. So if they are, then why do they require any source? Did the fact that the Earth is round have to be "forwarded" by an objective source?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And in the case of God, the morals that he forward are the ones that God created so creation is a part of it.
    You previously stated that God creating morals is just an example of how he forwards them. Here you're saying that creating is a part of it. Is this another one of those things you say in response to issues with the definition that aren't actually intended to be the definition? Does the definition of objective morality include the objective source creating them?
    Please provide a coherent definition of objective morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If a being knows the objective moral truth, regardless of whether the truth is of his creation or he learns of it, he is objectively correct when he tells people of the truth so their only options are to agree with his pronouncements (which are true) or disagree and be incorrect.
    What kind of being are you referring to, and what do you mean by "or he learns of [objective moral truth]"? Are you saying it's possible that objective morality was not created by any being?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which means the person who is objectively certain that the earth is round has the advantage over the man who is not objectively certain. He has the most justified certainty (in his own mind).
    This is not a valid response to my point. Since such endeavours are not one-man operations, the justified certainty in his own mind won't provide him with any advantage in being able to undertake the endeavour. Indeed, the person who has actual justified certainty and can demonstrate it using facts will have the biggest advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    you would be less likely to commit that crime than someone who doesn't think that such a consequence awaits them.
    Again, this is merely your assertion. Have you ever seen the stats on criminality vs. religiosity?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That is part of one particular religion. It is not part of objective morality in general and therefore is a red herring.
    Well, punishment of any kind is not part of objective morality in general, so why did you bring it up as an example of an advantage? The fact that you brought up punishment implies very specific set of religions, which usually include other requirements in order to get the advantage of avoiding punishment. You should try being a little bit more specific about what you're referring to when you offer avoiding punishment as an advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    None of this is inherent in objective morality. You are basically introducing a bunch of red herrings. If one KNOW that thievery is objectively wrong but knows nothing else regarding objective morality, they have an advantage in that particular way.
    If the advantage you're referring to is avoiding punishment, then you are introducing the other specific requirements, that is, unless you are talking about a universe where the objective moral source has forwarded only theft as the punishable moral crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as all of the other issues go, everyone is equal so it doesn't counter-act the one advantage that he does have.
    Yes, they are all equally susceptible to being punished by failing to adhere to all the other requirements.

    It appears you mis-quoted or missed this: So the only advantage you can offer is personal, and not to the society? Doesn't that go against the point of any moral system?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If one can avoid 5% of a punishment, they have an advantage over the person who can't avoid any of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And quite simply, you are deviating from my scenario. I did not introduce all of the Christian God stuff. My scenario is just about stealing when one knows that stealing is objectively wrong. Everything else is irrelevant to my point.
    Dude, you're the one who brought up punishment, which implies a specific set of religion with specific other qualities and requirements. If you don't want those included in your scenario, then you need to define it better. So, to clarify, is your scenario about an objective moral source that punishes to varying degrees according to the crimes committed, with no possibility of repentance? If so, is that punishment infinite, or does it vary depending on the crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract this assertion.
    Please be specific about what you're referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are referring to the Christian theology, then you are going off-topic as my scenario was not about that. If you are not referring to the Christian theology, then I see no reason why avoiding stealing when it is indeed punishable in the afterlife doesn't give one an advantage over those who aren't so concerned about the consequences of stealing.
    You'll have to clarify your scenario in order to answer that question yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If they exist and people are adhering to them because of that, then there are real-world advantages such as people having an additional incentive to follow objective correct morals.
    The first part of your sentence reminds me of an old comic (http://nativeye.com/blog/wp-content/...o-cartoon1.jpg). You seem to think that whatever you say as part of a scenario is valid and helps support your argument, no matter how incoherent it is. Unfortunately, that's just not the case. So between the first part of "if they exist" and "people adhere to them because of that", you're making quite a large leap to then reach your goal of "there are real-world advantages". This leads back to the point about the value in being correct really only comes when you can demonstrate that you are.

    Looks like another missed quote: So, if they existed, would they have real-world benefits? Aren't the real-world benefits what's actually important when evaluating moral systems?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not necessarily true. What if "Don't murder" is the ONLY objective moral position forwarded by God and God doesn't really care what we do beyond that? Then not murdering is all we need to do to avoid punishment.
    Then in that case the people against murder for personal reasons also avoid punishment, so there's no advantage, which is basically what the point you were responding to was making. Again, can you provide any better examples of an advantage?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that doesn't really address the advantage I was referring to anyway. I'm saying that the primary reason we don't murder could be because murder is objective wrong even if many of us don't recognize the source of morality.
    But then any one who holds that murder is wrong for any reason would garner the same advantage, regardless of why they have that opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In other words, what you think is just your opinion about murder is actually based on the objective moral position regarding murder (hypothetically).
    This is actually how secular morality works, but instead of "objective moral position", it's "objective facts about reality". Your insistence on the question of morality being only forwarded by an objective being or merely the subjective opinion or people is what makes your OP so pointless, as I explained in my very first post.

  14. #234
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Support or retract that I have stated that I think it's ill-defined.
    "Mican, I have provided clear explanations using specific references to your posts, which show that your terms are ill-defined."

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Wow, you still won't acknowledge that twice, in response to criticism about your definition, you made statements of "objective morality means", and still try to put it on my mistaken thinking...
    Seriously dude, your penchant for blaming any issues with the way you've expressed yourself on someone else's misunderstanding is getting quite annoying. That you keep falling back on "but, others are engaging in the debate" only makes it worse.
    And your blaming me for your failure to understand my argument is also annoying. Do you not acknowledge the possibility that if you misunderstand something that it just might be your fault to some extent? And I've shown that at least in part your belief that my argument is incoherent is indeed based on your misunderstanding. You didn't understand that all of the statements I made about OM after the OP were not alternative definitions but just statements about the OP. So you confused definitions of OM with statements about OM.

    And really, engaging in a blame game over who's fault it is that a misunderstanding occurred is a waste of time. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. If something I said in the OP confuses you to the extent that it significantly hampers your ability to debate the argument then I'm presenting, then the only thing that needs to happen is that we somehow get you to understand what I'm saying. If a particular word isn't quite right but you understand what I'm saying regardless, then you understand and can debate.

    And since below you are making entirely relevant arguments to my OP and you likewise have made relevant arguments in the past, I would say that you do understand.

    Really, it looks to me like you are attempting to defeat my argument by arguing that it's incoherent. That just won't work. If one does not understand the argument, that does not make the argument wrong. It means that either something should be done to help the person understand the argument or the person should just not respond at all.

    And again, you are responding coherently to the argument so the argument is clearly coherent enough for you to work with.

    So in short, I am not going to engage in your complaints that my argument is incoherent further. Its supposed incoherence does not effect whether it is correct or not and who's to blame for you supposedly finding the argument to be incoherent does not effect its correctness.

    So anyway, now it's time to respond to your coherent arguments regarding my OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Support it however you want. You're the one claiming that the objective morals would be just like facts about reality. So if they are, then why do they require any source?
    Because morals have a source. Subjective morals have a subjective source and objective morals have an objective source.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What kind of being are you referring to, and what do you mean by "or he learns of [objective moral truth]"? Are you saying it's possible that objective morality was not created by any being?
    A being that knows what objective morality is. And I suppose the source doesn't have to qualify as a "being".

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is not a valid response to my point. Since such endeavours are not one-man operations, the justified certainty in his own mind won't provide him with any advantage in being able to undertake the endeavour. Indeed, the person who has actual justified certainty and can demonstrate it using facts will have the biggest advantage.
    I was referring to investing (as in putting money into) in the shipping expedition and one person can make an investment.

    To be clear, if a person has a $1000 to invest and is deciding how much they should invest in the shipping expedition, the better their knowledge of the expeditions odds of being successful, the more wisely they can choose how much of their money they should invest in the expedition.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, this is merely your assertion. Have you ever seen the stats on criminality vs. religiosity?
    My argument is not about religion. If objective morality exists and some people know of it, they don't necessarily have to belong to a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Well, punishment of any kind is not part of objective morality in general, so why did you bring it up as an example of an advantage? The fact that you brought up punishment implies very specific set of religions, which usually include other requirements in order to get the advantage of avoiding punishment. You should try being a little bit more specific about what you're referring to when you offer avoiding punishment as an advantage.
    A punishment in the afterlife does not have to be tied to any particular religion. Hypothetically, all religions are pure fiction and know nothing about God at all and yet objective morality and its consequences exist and a particular person learns the truth and therefore has the advantage I'm referring to.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, they are all equally susceptible to being punished by failing to adhere to all the other requirements.
    My scenario made no mention of other requirements so this is off-topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It appears you mis-quoted or missed this: So the only advantage you can offer is personal, and not to the society? Doesn't that go against the point of any moral system?
    It's not the only advantage I can offer. It's the only one I need to offer to address your request for an advantage. You did not specify personal or societal advantage so I picked personal. If you concede my argument regarding personal advantage, then I will move on to societal. But I'm not going to change the topic before the first one is resolved.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Dude, you're the one who brought up punishment, which implies a specific set of religion with specific other qualities and requirements.
    In your mind. When you read more into my argument than I actually present, I can only point out that your are adding stuff that isn't in my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you don't want those included in your scenario, then you need to define it better. So, to clarify, is your scenario about an objective moral source that punishes to varying degrees according to the crimes committed, with no possibility of repentance? If so, is that punishment infinite, or does it vary depending on the crimes?
    My scenario is that thievery is objective immoral and committing such an act has consequences in the afterlife and if a person knows this, then they are less likely to suffer the consequences and therefore have an advantage over those who don't know what he knows. This is an example of an advantage of knowing objective morality giving one an advantage.

    Either concede that this will indeed give a person an advantage or rebut that it will give him an advantage. Asking for more details does neither.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The first part of your sentence reminds me of an old comic (http://nativeye.com/blog/wp-content/...o-cartoon1.jpg). You seem to think that whatever you say as part of a scenario is valid and helps support your argument, no matter how incoherent it is. Unfortunately, that's just not the case. So between the first part of "if they exist" and "people adhere to them because of that", you're making quite a large leap to then reach your goal of "there are real-world advantages". This leads back to the point about the value in being correct really only comes when you can demonstrate that you are.
    It's not a large leap. If a certain moral position is objective correct, then it's correct. The very hypothetical scenario that I'm presenting has these morals being correct and to question their correctness is to ignore the scenario that I'm presenting and therefore failing to form a relevant argument regarding it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Looks like another missed quote: So, if they existed, would they have real-world benefits? Aren't the real-world benefits what's actually important when evaluating moral systems?
    If people murder less because it's objectively immoral to murder then the objective morality against murder has real-world benefits (less murder).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then in that case the people against murder for personal reasons also avoid punishment, so there's no advantage, which is basically what the point you were responding to was making. Again, can you provide any better examples of an advantage?
    But people can be against murder and still occasionally murder as people compromise their morals on occasion. So the more disincentives one has against murder, the less like he will murder. So those who BOTH are personally against murder and also know they will be punished if they murder are less likely to commit murder than those who are just against murder.

    Being against murder out of personal morals and against murder because of a belief that it's objectively moral are not mutually exclusive. The more reasons one has to be against murder, the less likely they are to murder.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is actually how secular morality works, but instead of "objective moral position", it's "objective facts about reality". Your insistence on the question of morality being only forwarded by an objective being or merely the subjective opinion or people is what makes your OP so pointless, as I explained in my very first post.
    Per the OP, whoever has it right has the advantage. All else being equal, having correct information is better than having incorrect information. I have supported that objectively knowing that thievery is wrong (if it is objectively wrong) gives one an advantage over those who think otherwise.

    Likewise is morality is subjective, then the subjectivist has the advantage.
    Last edited by mican333; September 9th, 2017 at 09:27 AM.

  15. #235
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    1. Objective morality may or may not exist.
    2. If it does exist, then it would take a perfectly objective being to recognize it.
    3. Any being who was not perfectly objective could never be sure he recognized objective morality if it exists.
    4. Therefore, what is morally objective is unknowable.
    5. If someone knew what is morally objective, then that person would have to be a god or some supremely objective being.

    The above are my premises for this topic. I half-expect that this will largely go unchallenged. Those who believe in god will accept the above and determine that their views of morality come from an objective source. Those who do not believe in god will concur with the understanding that subjective morality, while imperfect, isn't any less perfect than an objective standard which cannot be attained.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #236
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2. If it does exist, then it would take a perfectly objective being to recognize it.

    Why is that?
    If humans can conceive of the idea, why could they not recognize it if it was presented to them?

  17. #237
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Objective morality may or may not exist.
    2. If it does exist, then it would take a perfectly objective being to recognize it.
    3. Any being who was not perfectly objective could never be sure he recognized objective morality if it exists.
    4. Therefore, what is morally objective is unknowable.
    5. If someone knew what is morally objective, then that person would have to be a god or some supremely objective being.
    Theoretically, you don't have to be God to know at least some of what God knows. If God comes to a person and says "Murder is objectively immoral" then the person knows that murder is objective immoral without being God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Those who believe in god will accept the above and determine that their views of morality come from an objective source. Those who do not believe in god will concur with the understanding that subjective morality, while imperfect, isn't any less perfect than an objective standard which cannot be attained.
    If there is no objective morality, subjective morality would be superior to objective morality. All else being equal, it's better to accurately know where one's morality come from instead of misidentifying the source of morality.

  18. #238
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    [1] a) The point is that my Christian worldview CAN make sense of the overall picture, your worldview can't. It does not have what is NECESSARY to do so.
    YOU can't make sense of it. I can. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."
    How does your worldview answer origins?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sure the Christian point of view provides possible answers to existence and that is fine...........if it's true. Like I said, I'm searching for truth, if Christianity is true, I'm fine with that.
    How will you know you have found truth?

    May I ask if you have read the Bible and if so, did you understand what you read? Most people who come to the Bible skim over the relevant audience of address and the time frame. They also fail to understand what the context means concerning those addresses, although it is evident.

    I usually start with the Olivet Discourse in pointing this relevant audience out. The address to Jesus's disciples on the Mount of Olives is far reaching in its prophetic scope. It covers many OT prophecies and their framework for fulfillment. The message is one of a soon destruction of the OT economy, the temple and sacrifice system these OT people have lived with for over a thousand years.

    Do you know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? Many Christians read into the Discourse some information not found in the text. They manufacture a time frame foreign to the text. Dispensationalism has been a movement responsible for a total misinterpretation of Scripture.

    So, if you want to understand Scripture you must know the audience of address and the indirect applications (Scripture, in the Discourse, is speaking to a particular OT people directly, and from them to us, indirectly) for believers who would follow that audience.

    The way it speaks to us today is by its history and prophetic fulfillment, calling us, like that 1st-century audience to faith in God, through His Son; to trust Him. The Bible claims to be God's word, His revelation, to humanity. It is a verification that His word is true, we can trust it! What God says comes to pass. The OT explains how humanity fell from grace and intimate fellowship with God and God's plan to once again redeem those who would believe and trust Him. To do that (redeem them) God promises a Messiah, who He would send through a particular people (Israel) who will meet His just requirements.

    The whole OT prophecies and shadows/types focus on this Messiah and the nation (via genealogies) that He would be born though. There are hundreds of prophecies that all meet their fulfillment with the coming of the Messiah and His Second Coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What is this world view you keep ascribing to me. I think I have mostly asked questions, not promoted any particular viewpoint.
    That I am questioning your point of view says little to my own view.
    Jesus made it clear; we are either for Him or against Him (Matthew 12:30). He made it clear that people build on one of two positions/worldviews (Matthew 7:24-29).

    A worldview is a way we construct our outlook on life. We start with core presuppositions that everything else rests upon and then filter everything through those core presuppositions. It is a web of beliefs that rest on core/foundational presuppositions, the building blocks or the start of the web.

    What happens when you deny God is that you look for some other means to explain existence.

    An atheist begins by presupposing that there is no personal Creator of the universe. Therefore, origins are explained by naturalistic and mechanical means alone rather than beginning by supernatural means.

    So, on that basis I can examine whether an atheistic or Christian worldview can make sense of itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What caused the BB, and WHY?
    What caused conscious beings and life, and why?
    Which relative, subjective human being decides for the rest what SHOULD be, and what is their measure that is BEST?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your first two questions are very interesting to me, and partly why we are talking
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your last question doesn't really work. If there were no God, why would a "subjective human being decides for the rest what SHOULD be, and what is their measure that is BEST?"
    Your last statement is interesting to me.

    If there is no objective moral truth, then some subjective human being(s) has(have) to make the law based on preferences. Their belief is the basis of the law. They impose their PREFERENCES on others. With no objective being "morals" by nature comes from subjective beings. They would be made-up, not discovered, relative, not fixed on something unchanging. The question is, "Why is their moral position "right?" What are they basing it on and what about the next guy who thinks differently? Why can't his views be right too? The problem is that logically both views can't be right, if either.

    Why does Kim Jong-un decide for the whole of North Korea what will be? Why, because he can! He has the POWER to enact his wishes, what he LIKES. Why is what he likes "good"; just because he wants or prefers something? Why is what he does any different from someone who enacts their likes on others?

    What is Kim Jong-un comparing "good" too? Is it not his LIKES, what he wants? Are you prepared to say that what he likes is good for him and good for North Korea? Why/not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Indeed, there may be no God and what we see is what you would expect if that was the case. Different civilizations thru history have had different morals.
    Then I challenge you to tell me why any belief is any better than any other in a relative, subjective world of opinion.

    The fact that some things are almost universally believed suggests there is an objective reference point we silently believe. For instance, when is it ever RIGHT to torture an innocent baby for fun? Can you point to a culture who believes it is?

    More later.

    Peter

  19. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  20. #239
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    Then I challenge you to tell me why any belief is any better than any other in a relative, subjective world of opinion.

    The fact that some things are almost universally believed suggests there is an objective reference point we silently believe. For instance, when is it ever RIGHT to torture an innocent baby for fun? Can you point to a culture who believes it is?

    More later.

    Peter

    Hi Peter, I'm afraid my post tonight won't shake the foundations of anyone's beliefs. I only have a few minutes, but I appreciate talking with you, and didn't want you to think I had gone away.

    On your first point, I certainly do NOT profess that a subjective universe is necessarily better than an objective one. I don't even know how that comes into play. If there is a God, fine. If not, fine.
    The world as we know it won't change just because we know the truth.

    The fact that "some things are almost universally believed" shows that, social creatures need to behave in social ways or they will not continue to be social creatures. Absolutely nothing surprising here and nothing at all that shows a higher power wants us to act in specific ways (even though, God already "knows" how we will react to any given situation. It must be boring to always know how the play is going to end, but watch it play out anyway......)

    Sorry for the short response. I will try to get back to you soon.

  21. #240
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How will you know you have found truth?
    Great question
    I admit the answer seems elusive and hard to pin down in a few short words...

    ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    May I ask if you have read the Bible and if so, did you understand what you read? Most people who come to the Bible skim over the relevant audience of address and the time frame. They also fail to understand what the context means concerning those addresses, although it is evident.
    I have studied the Bible, but not read it from front to back non-stop. If I had reason to believe it was the "word of God", I would.

    ---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Jesus made it clear; we are either for Him or against Him (Matthew 12:30). He made it clear that people build on one of two positions/worldviews (Matthew 7:24-29).

    And I totally reject this position. It hardly builds a path to understanding...

    ---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    An atheist begins by presupposing that there is no personal Creator of the universe. Therefore, origins are explained by naturalistic and mechanical means alone rather than beginning by supernatural means.

    So, on that basis I can examine whether an atheistic or Christian worldview can make sense of itself.

    Are all atheists the same in their viewpoint?
    All we have a the moment is "naturalistic", since god seems to like the shadows rather than proving to all that he does in fact exist. I hear people argue for God, I just never experience God showing to his creations that he exists.

    ---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, on that basis I can examine whether an atheistic or Christian worldview can make sense of itself.

    There just is absolutely no reason at all that the universe "needs" to make sense to humans!!!!!
    (other than human's would like it to)
    You make a God necessary by definition rather than by reality.
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 18th, 2017 at 06:09 PM.

 

 
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Objective Morality and atheism
    By CliveStaples in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 02:36 PM
  2. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
  3. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 06:59 AM
  4. Subjective Morality Is Pointless
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: September 7th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  5. Subjective Morality
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 07:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •