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 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 323
  1. #241
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    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.

    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.
    Your premises? Why are they true?

    How can there be such a thing as subjective morality? Surely you mean subjective preference that you happen to call "good" or "bad"?

    If a standard is objective it is what IS true. It must conform to truth, surely?

    1. How would you arrive at morality is there was nothing objective to base right and wrong upon?
    2. True, and the Bible claims that it is God's (the necessary objective beings) revelation to humanity, so we may know too.
    3. Unless, 1) it was sown into our very being by the Creator and/or, 2) He has revealed what is right and wrong. Then we could know what is objectively moral.
    4. If it is not knowable then morality is nothing more than human preference.
    What makes your preference ANY BETTER than any other subjective being? (May I charge that nothing does if there is no necessary Being we derive best from and measure it against His person, His character, who He is, and what He has revealed).

    You have to have a best to call something good. If you arbitrarily make it up then why can't I make up something else?
    So, without this objectively moral Being who has revealed to us that we must not murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, or covet, then what makes your view better than mine or Kim Jong-un's? What morality boils down to without God is someone pushing their particular preference on someone else. Which do you prefer, Putin's preference, that of Kim Jong Un, President Xi's. Do you like Castro's Cuba? How about the America Obama influenced? Like it?

    5. Why can't someone know what is morally objective because it has been revealed by a morally objective Being? You know mathematical principles are objective (I hope you do), such as 2+2=4. That principle of addition does not depend on you believing it. It is true whether you believe it or not. It is a NECESSARY truth, just like logic is a necessary truth. It does not depend on any one human being believing it or making it up. But it does depend on mindful being - God. God is a necessary truth in understanding our universe, our existence, to some degree.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 03:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    Some creatures need to behave in a social way, others do not. Kim Jong-In may not want to play socially with you. He may very well want to obliterate you. Why SHOULD your standard be better than his, and what makes it BETTER? Because you LIKE it. He likes his own, thank you very much! If it is in his power everybody would learn to like his preference or be eliminated.

    If evolution is TRUE then we are just biological bags of atoms reacting to our environment. What makes your bag of atoms react any better than mine? Would it be because it survives longer than mine?

    The question is, why are we searching for meaning if the universe is meaningless? If there is no meaning BEHIND the universe then what does anything really matter? Yet, you make it matter.

    My answer why you make it matter is because you are made in the image and likeness of God. You retain something of His image for He made you to be a rational, thinking, loving, creative being who never finds the answers to life's ultimate questions until/unless you find Him.

    Every worldview has its core beliefs that try to answer these ultimate questions for some reason.
    1) Who am I?
    2) Why am I here?
    3) What does it matter?
    4) What happens when I die?

    You may not recognize it, but all worldviews attempt to answer such questions.

    Let me give you my idea of a simplistic atheistic answer as,
    1) I am an accidental blob of matter that somehow acquired consciousness, intelligence and reason.
    2) Don't really know - no reason.
    3) It doesn't but you can make it matter.
    4) You no longer exist.

    Ravi Zacharias sums it up:

    Naturalism cannot have it both ways. It cannot assume intrinsic worth while assuming accidental causes. Transcending value and justice must come from a person of transcending worth and an ultimate law or value-giver—and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creation of One who is of ultimate worth and the perfect lawgiver. That person is God. But in a world in which no person or moral cause brought us into being, as naturalists claim, there can be no intrinsic personal worth and no ultimate moral foundation. The raising of the question as a moral argument against God self-destructs. Morality is value-laden, starting with the value of a person."

    "When one asserts that there is such a thing as evil, one must assume there is such a thing as good. When one assumes there is such a thing as good, he or she must also assume there is an objective moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. When you assume an objective moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver—the source of the moral law."


    http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-one-question/

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 AM ----------

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

    I know I am not necessary for 2+2=4. Can 2+2 ever be anything other than 4? Would 2+2=4 be true before the first human being? If not then was there a time before human beings existed when 2+2 was something other than 4?

    The problem with intangibles in a supposed physical universe is how does something physical produces something abstract and immaterial/non-physical?

    Mathematical laws are prior to me. They do not require me for them to be true.

    Language would not be possible without the laws of logic; the Law of Identity; the Law of Non-contradiction; the Law of Excluded Middles. Those laws do not depend on me but without them I could not make sense of anything. Which limited human being do you think INVENTED them, or do you think he DISCOVERED them? I will later attempt to argue that these laws are universal and beyond human minds, yet they require a mind because morality, logic and mathematical principles are not of the physical realm of sight, taste, touch, sound, or smell. If you think they are then what does goodness weigh, or taste like, or smell like?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    Then the chances are the you have been influenced by someone's thinking on the Bible. Have you ever considered what it meant to the relevant audience of address?

    If you are at all interested, here is a link to consider:

    http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/podcast/405.mp3

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I totally reject this position. It hardly builds a path to understanding...
    Basically those two verses say there are two paths to build upon:

    Jesus said - "Whoever is not with me is against me." Either you believe Him or you believe someone else.

    NEXT

    Jesus said (I paraphrase): "You either build your house (what you believe) on what I teach or you build it on what the world teaches. If you build your knowledge on what I [Jesus] teach you build on solid ground. When your worldview comes under assault it will stand the test. If you build your worldview, what you believe, apart from Me [Jesus] you build on shaky ground and what you build will perish because it has no solid, everlasting foundation to attach itself to."

    Either you start with God, a personal being, or you start with an impersonal, material explanation. It there is no God then how could the universe be explained personally, unless you want to suggestion that you are the explanation for it? Without a personal being creating the universe it would have to be by impersonal forces and chance (no intentionality).

    So, are you rejecting that you build you outlook on one of these two positions? If so, then how do you explain origins?

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    No, not usually, because they are confused at what they believe to be true. But EITHER God or chance happenstance is responsible for existence, right??? Can you think of any other explanation. Either we are intentionally created, or existence is unintentional, thus a chance existence. You could offer one other view that I know of - everything is an illusion. Where do you want to start?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    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.
    Why do you suppose they want to make sense of it? If it is senseless then it would be insane to try and make sense of it - surely - for there would be no sense to it? Yet we keep finding sense to it.

    What is NECESSARY to make sense of morality? (A NECESSARY BEING!)
    Which subjective being do you think makes sense of reality, unaided by God, and how can you EVER be sure?
    Our limited knowledge of the universe is always being revised. The old model is out and a new paradigm becomes vogue until someone finds holes in it and moves on to yet another paradigm.

    Peter

  2. #242
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How can there be such a thing as subjective morality? Surely you mean subjective preference that you happen to call "good" or "bad"?
    You don't get to redefine words to suit your argument.

    Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" and there is nothing in the definition that states that morality cannot be based on subjective preferences. If one thinks that something is right or wrong, then it is a moral position.

    So yes, when speaking of one's own subjective position, they are indeed referring to what they happen to think is right or wrong and that, BY DEFINITION, is a moral position.

  3. #243
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Some creatures need to behave in a social way, others do not. Kim Jong-In may not want to play socially with you. He may very well want to obliterate you. Why SHOULD your standard be better than his, and what makes it BETTER? Because you LIKE it. He likes his own, thank you very much! If it is in his power everybody would learn to like his preference or be eliminated.
    If everyone (or just people in general) behaved like Kim (nutcase) we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no computers (for instance). Humans need each other to survive. We are only formidable (as a species) when we work together.
    Without cooperation, there would just be anarchy, and pretty much, whoever is stronger can "decide what's right. Which is exactly what history shows us.

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Every worldview has its core beliefs that try to answer these ultimate questions for some reason.
    1) Who am I?
    2) Why am I here?
    3) What does it matter?
    4) What happens when I die?

    You may not recognize it, but all worldviews attempt to answer such questions.

    1. I am just me, no more, no less.
    2. Here your question presupposes the answer you desire. However, the truth is, "I am here" because your parents had sex....
    3. It only matters to the people you care about, the people that care about you, and all the little things you do everyday that affect other people's lives.
    4. Most likely answer seems to be "back to where you were before you were born", but really there is not enough evidence/information to really know.

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Ravi Zacharias sums it up:

    Naturalism cannot have it both ways. It cannot assume intrinsic worth while assuming accidental causes. Transcending value and justice must come from a person of transcending worth and an ultimate law or value-giver—and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creation of One who is of ultimate worth and the perfect lawgiver. That person is God. But in a world in which no person or moral cause brought us into being, as naturalists claim, there can be no intrinsic personal worth and no ultimate moral foundation. The raising of the question as a moral argument against God self-destructs. Morality is value-laden, starting with the value of a person."

    "When one asserts that there is such a thing as evil, one must assume there is such a thing as good. When one assumes there is such a thing as good, he or she must also assume there is an objective moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. When you assume an objective moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver—the source of the moral law."
    While it seems simple enough to say "evil" exists as a thing, as apposed to an idea, proving it would be quite a challenge indeed. The idea of evil seems more a result of moral thinking than of its actual existence.

    Would you please define morality for me, in your own words, not a dictionary. I think we are looking at this word differently and I just want to clarify your position so I am speaking to what you believe.

  4. #244
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You don't get to redefine words to suit your argument.

    Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" and there is nothing in the definition that states that morality cannot be based on subjective preferences. If one thinks that something is right or wrong, then it is a moral position.
    More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
    1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.


    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

    Moral Relativism
    "The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation…The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences."

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ral+Relativism

    Whose preference and what makes their preference RIGHT? Is Kim Jong-uns preferences right (as he threatens to destroy YOUR country)? If he succeeds then you will be at his mercy of what he deems as right, if you are alive.

    When two preferences are different and they both claim they are right then who is right? YOU?

    Moral questions are the kinds of questions atheists are devoid of making sense of because they can't locate an absolute (let alone objective) standard. There has to be something concrete to measure what is good against that is not fleeting and changing. I could take a number of issues and ask you to let me know who is right in their views. LOGICALLY, they both can't be right because they both state something opposite and contradictory. What an atheist does is run contrary to the laws of logic, smacks into these LAWS of Noncontradiction and Identity, then pretends everything is kosha. It is a pathetic display of foolishness, IMO of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So yes, when speaking of one's own subjective position, they are indeed referring to what they happen to think is right or wrong and that, BY DEFINITION, is a moral position.
    What you fail to do is identify what is right. It all depends on how you feel. You say it is right because you like it. How the hell does that make anything RIGHT? Is raping children for fun EVER right? With your line of thinking it can be depending upon who thinks it is. It is utter madness and the thing wars are fought over. How do you justify your subjective feelings are "right" other than by forcefully imposing those ideas on others.

    Rightness needs an objective, absolute best or anything can pass as right.

    Which is right - Is it right to legislate a woman the right to kill the unborn human being because she wants to (for some reason that does not affect her health), or is it murder?

    How many countries think it is right and how many feel it is wrong?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

    Please look at the table at the bottom of the website and tell me how you know which view is the correct view and why.

    Obviously, these are two conflicting views on the same subject matter - abortion. How can they both be right and still conform to the logical law of identity???

    The Christian view can defend the argument for their position on abortion with reason and logic, IMO.

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; September 19th, 2017 at 09:42 PM.

  5. #245
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Some creatures need to behave socially, others do not. Kim Jong-In may not want to play socially with you. He may very well want to obliterate you. Why SHOULD your standard be better than his, and what makes it BETTER? Because you LIKE it. He likes his own, thank you very much! If it is in his power, everybody would learn to like his preference or be eliminated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If everyone (or just people in general) behaved like Kim (nutcase) we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no computers (for instance). Humans need each other to survive. We are only formidable (as a species) when we work together.
    Granted, but what makes his views any BETTER than your opinion? Is it because you don't like his views, or is there some standard of justice that is above all others that you can appeal to?

    A relative standard begs the question of why it is good in a competing world of ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Without cooperation, there would just be anarchy, and pretty much, whoever is stronger can "decide what's right. Which is exactly what history shows us.
    Why do I HAVE TO cooperate if I don't LIKE what you are claiming is right and I disagree? If there is no objective, unchanging, universal, absolute standard of appeal then why SHOULD I adopt your standard if I don't LIKE it? After all, is there something other than PREFERENCES that you are basing morality on?

    If preference is all you have got, then we can examine preferences.
    If it is based on behaviors then, then why does descriptive measures (what is) make something right (what OUGHT to be)?
    Again, the second view defaults to opinions once again. I can give you a number of issues that are called right by one country and wrong by another. I put one such link in my last post to Mican. There are many others.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Every worldview has its core beliefs that try to answer these ultimate questions for some reason.
    1) Who am I?
    2) Why am I here?
    3) What does it matter?
    4) What happens when I die?

    You may not recognize it, but all worldviews attempt to answer such questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. I am just me, no more, no less.
    Who else could you be? (^8

    The point is that worldviews try to answer the questions of what you are as a human being. Are you just biological functions that react to environment and chemical factors, governed by chance? If so then what makes the way your body works any BETTER than the way my body functions. If my genes are rigged to kill someone to survive or because they are competing for the same resources I am then, why is that wrong? A lion does not think about the moral implications when it takes down a gazelle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    2. Here your question presupposes the answer you desire. However, the truth is, "I am here" because your parents had sex....
    My question looks at origins, what put such factors into place; the source or your parents and ancestors all the way back to first causes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    3. It only matters to the people you care about, the people that care about you, and all the little things you do everyday that affect other people's lives.
    The question is why it matters or why it SHOULD matter. How do morality and intent creep into a non-living, dumb, non-conscious process? You just assume it can by the way you build the way you look at the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    4. Most likely answer seems to be "back to where you were before you were born", but really there is not enough evidence/information to really know.
    Your worldview is one that can have no certainty to it because it does not have what is necessary for certainty in such areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Ravi Zacharias sums it up:

    Naturalism cannot have it both ways. It cannot assume intrinsic worth while assuming accidental causes. Transcending value and justice must come from a person of transcending worth and an ultimate law or value-giver—and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creation of One who is of ultimate worth and the perfect lawgiver. That person is God. But in a world in which no person or moral cause brought us into being, as naturalists claim, there can be no intrinsic personal worth and no ultimate moral foundation. The raising of the question as a moral argument against God self-destructs. Morality is value-laden, starting with the value of a person."

    "When one asserts that there is such a thing as evil, one must assume there is such a thing as good. When one assumes there is such a thing as good, he or she must also assume there is an objective moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. When you assume an objective moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver—the source of the moral law."
    While it seems simple enough to say "evil" exists as a thing, as apposed to an idea, proving it would be quite a challenge indeed. The idea of evil seems more a result of moral thinking than of its actual existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Would you please define morality for me, in your own words, not a dictionary. I think we are looking at this word differently and I just want to clarify your position so I am speaking to what you believe.
    Simply put, in my own words, morality is what is right or wrong.

    What you may not be grasping is WHAT makes something right. That is the million dollar question. If there is no absolute standard of appeal to measure right then, what subjective being gets to decide? It is the question that wars are fought over.

    Peter

  6. #246
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Granted, but what makes his views any BETTER than your opinion? Is it because you don't like his views, or is there some standard of justice that is above all others that you can appeal to?
    I have not said ANYTHING about "better". Sometimes the truth hurts.....

  7. #247
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
    1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.


    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

    Moral Relativism
    "The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation…The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences."

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ral+Relativism
    And if anything, this completely backs up what I said. "Morality" can be subjective/relative or objective/absolute and therefore it's perfectly valid to refer to subjective morality as morality and your argument one can't do that is based on nothing more than your individual decision to deny that definition.

    You can criticize subjective morality all you want but it's still morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Whose preference and what makes their preference RIGHT? Is Kim Jong-uns preferences right (as he threatens to destroy YOUR country)? If he succeeds then you will be at his mercy of what he deems as right, if you are alive.
    But then Kim has already dominated millions of people (his subjects in North Korea) so even if there is an objective source of morality that says that Kim cannot subjugate people, Kim is free to ignore it and enforce his will on his subjects. So whether one thinks subjectively that he is wrong or objectively that he is wrong doesn't seem to make much difference in whether Kim is allowed to dominate millions of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    When two preferences are different and they both claim they are right then who is right? YOU?
    Well, if you believe something is objectively immoral and someone else thinks that the same thing is not objectively immoral, then who is right? YOU?

    People can disagree with objective moral positions just as people can disagree on subjective moral positions.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Moral questions are the kinds of questions atheists are devoid of making sense of because they can't locate an absolute (let alone objective) standard.
    Because they believe that no such objective standard exists. And if they are correct (and no one has proven that they are not), then they have the advantage over those who are looking for a standard as they are looking for something that doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    There has to be something concrete to measure what is good against that is not fleeting and changing.
    But then subjective morality is hardly fleeting. Most of the major moral positions that one holds (like being against murder) will never change in one's lifetime.

    And support or retract that there has to be concrete standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I could take a number of issues and ask you to let me know who is right in their views. LOGICALLY, they both can't be right because they both state something opposite and contradictory.
    But then objective morality runs into the same problem. If two people have contradictory positions on a moral issue but both hold that their moral positions are objectively correct, then how do I know which is correct?

    One guy says "Gay marriage is objectively immoral" and the other guy says "Gay marriage is not objectively immoral". If I believe that morality is objective, I do know that one of them is wrong but I don't know which one is. And in reality, no one has even shown that there is an objective moral position regarding gay marriage or what it is. So I'm suppose to just say "no comment" because I don't know which is objectively correct? It would be wrong for me to have my own moral opinion on the matter and forward it because I don't know how it squares with objective morality or even if there is an objectively moral position regarding gay marriage?

    Nope. I have an opinion on the issue and there's nothing wrong with me saying it if I so choose. And I can even take action to forward my moral belief and sign petitions and support legislation and speak out and so on. If I never acted on a moral position until I knew whether it was objectively correct, I would do nothing at all and therefore fail to promote the moral positions that I hold.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What you fail to do is identify what is right. It all depends on how you feel. You say it is right because you like it. How the hell does that make anything RIGHT? Is raping children for fun EVER right? With your line of thinking it can be depending upon who thinks it is. It is utter madness and the thing wars are fought over. How do you justify your subjective feelings are "right" other than by forcefully imposing those ideas on others.
    Well, let's use murder as an example (less icky than child rape). I think murder is immoral and I support using force to punish those who murder. Therefore I support laws against murder and enforcing them in the fashion we do today (with long prison sentences for those who murder). And I do not say that my position makes murder wrong in any objective sense. It's just what I think should be done and I support the system as it is with the small fraction of political power that I have as a US citizen. And it so happens that almost everyone else in this country agrees with me so we continue to have the justice system that we have when it comes to murder. And if morality is subjective, then this happens because pretty much everyone holds the same subjective moral position regarding murder and it has a positive result for us as it leads to less murder and therefore makes us safer.

    So if morality is subjective and this is the result, that's good enough. Our subjective morality, when applied, keeps us all safer.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Rightness needs an objective, absolute best or anything can pass as right.
    I consider that an opinion. If you can support this with something more than your own say-so, do so. Otherwise I'll just say that your opinion is noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Obviously, these are two conflicting views on the same subject matter - abortion. How can they both be right and still conform to the logical law of identity???

    The Christian view can defend the argument for their position on abortion with reason and logic, IMO.
    It can? I'm guessing that the Christian argument amounts to "God says abortion is immoral and therefore it is immoral and therefore there is no need to think for yourself on the issue as any opposing thoughts you may have regarding abortion are automatically incorrect". But if one is not convinced of the unsupported premise that there is a God who says that abortion is immoral, the Christian position is based on nothing at all, let alone something logical.
    Last edited by mican333; September 21st, 2017 at 06:46 AM.

  8. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  9. #248
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why do I HAVE TO cooperate if I don't LIKE what you are claiming is right and I disagree? If there is no objective, unchanging, universal, absolute standard of appeal then why SHOULD I adopt your standard if I don't LIKE it? After all, is there something other than PREFERENCES that you are basing morality on?
    Of course you don't have to! But historically, it upped your chances of survival greatly.

    ---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    My question looks at origins, what put such factors into place; the source or your parents and ancestors all the way back to first causes.
    Yes, very good question! No one knows, but geology and DNA, show life starting out fairly simple and moving to more to complex. Before that, how did organic become able to ask questions? Very interesting question....

    ---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Your worldview is one that can have no certainty to it because it does not have what is necessary for certainty in such areas.
    And to quote you:
    "my answer is so what"

    Truth is truth. It need not make sense to you, or anyone....

  10. Likes mican333 liked this post
  11. #249
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Granted, but what makes his views any BETTER than your opinion? Is it because you don't like his views, or is there some standard of justice that is above all others that you can appeal to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have not said ANYTHING about "better". Sometimes the truth hurts.....
    Okay, three points.

    Why would you believe something if it was not better to hold that view?

    Do you think your system of ethics (what you believe) is BETTER than that of Kim Jong Un's? If not then is it good/better to exploit people, put over 100,000 in prison for opposing you, drown out freedom of speech, indoctrinate and filter what your society hears, murder your half-brother and members of your cabinet, lock up Americans and torture them, threaten to blow up North America and Japan, want to take over South Korea, all to reach your goals of power?

    My question really focused on how you (anyone) determines what BETTER is, if there is not a fixed/final standard to compare views against. If there is none, then why is what you MAKE UP as your standard any BETTER than what I make up?

    The laws of logic (the way to determine whether something it reasonable, plus the very foundation of language and meaning) says that two opposing views cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner.

    So how do YOU determine "right" when two views oppose each other? Are you saying BOTH can be right? It goes against the very definition and meaning of "right." Anyone can claim anything is "Right" in such a system of thought. Meaning becomes blurred and non-existent. Would you apply the same principles to a traffic light system - Red means either Stop or Go. Green means whatever you can make it mean. Amber means whatever you want to make it mean!

    Kim Jong Un says it is good for his country in the long run to kill his half-brother by using biological weapons. The world condemns this action. If there is no ultimate, absolute, objective standard then, why is the rest of the worlds opinion any better than his? Majority opinion?

    Answer: It isn't. It is just one opinion, one like, against another and the one who holds the greater power wins.

    If he succeeded in getting his way then it is possible the rest of the world (majority) will come to see his way because he will just hold it hostage and eliminate all opposition like he has shown he will do in his own country.

    Peter

  12. #250
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    The person wasn't capable of discerning what is objectively moral in this case. He was told what is objectively moral. And since he trusted that God told him the truth, he believes it to be so. He does not know other than what was presented to him. At this point, we could delve into the difference between knowledge and belief. I guess that is up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Not knowing objective morality is different than it not not existing. So, perhaps, an agreement here. Objective morality is an ideal and it is an ideal which cannot be attained by man. I am assuming you and I agree that man does not speak to God. However, man can strive, albeit imperfectly towards that ideal. He can also be driven towards setbacks which bring him further from that ideal. The difference in these two directions is, itself, subjective. Do we agree on these points?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  14. #251
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Obviously, these are two conflicting views on the same subject matter - abortion. How can they both be right and still conform to the logical law of identity???

    The Christian view can defend the argument for their position on abortion with reason and logic, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    [1] It can? [2] I'm guessing that the Christian argument amounts to "God says abortion is immoral and therefore it is immoral and therefore there is no need to think for yourself on the issue as any opposing thoughts you may have regarding abortion are automatically incorrect". [3] But if one is not convinced of the unsupported premise that there is a God who says that abortion is immoral, the Christian position is based on nothing at all, let alone something logical.
    [1] It can! I believe I can show the reasonableness of believing in the Christian God is sound and logic. I do NOT believe that the same can be demonstrated by the atheist position in making sense of morality or abortion.

    [2] If I want an objective standard then I have to find what is necessary for such a standard. The Bible claims to be His revelation to us. It has what is necessary - an objective Being, a universal standard, absolute distinction of what is right and wrong (Do not kill/murder; Do not steal; Do not lie; Do not covet; Do not commit adultery; love your neighbor). I believe I can MOST reasonably defend such a position (although it takes a lot of work - I have to continually undermine the logic of your atheistic position in doing so). I can also show the reasonableness of God with prophecy. It is an argument I have not seen an atheist logically defend with the evidence we have available. (I hesitate in developing this argument because this argument takes a lot of work in getting to the presuppositions of the atheist with what is known or reasonable to believe historically. It focuses on the Olivet Discourse, since that discourse is a junction point for much of OT and NT prophet fulfillment).

    [3] Without invoking God I can still make the argument that abortion is immoral/wrong.

    But back to the abortion front; your system of thought does not have what is necessary to say it is 'right,' just that it is the choice of the majority or has been enacted into law by a vote of five-to-four. It is the difference between describing what is (DESCRIPTIVE) as opposed to what should be (PRESCRIPTIVE).

    Your system of thought can only say "I like the woman's 'right' to choose." You can't say this is morally GOOD, even if what you agree with is legislated as legal. All you can do is chirp your opinion and push for it to be enacted into law by popular opinion or by force from the elite who LIKE it too.

    If you would like to debate abortion (without me evoking God) I would be honored to bolster the logic of my position against yours on the basis of a discussion on the following talking points and others:

    1) Is the unborn a human being?
    2) Is human life intrinsically valuable?
    3) Is the unborn being a person?
    4) Is taking the life of an innocent human being murder?

    Would you like to comment? (OR, just say and we can take the discussion over to the abortion topic that you have been active in discussing)

    However, I raised the abortion issue for the very reason that there is disagreement on whether it is a woman's right to choose or not; whether abortion is wrong, or not. I included a table that shows the countries that believe abortion is right and other countries that believe it is wrong.

    The ISSUE is who is RIGHT?

    There are two distinctly opposite and different views regarding abortion. Which countries and which views are the correct view. Logically, and I can't get you to understand this point, both can't be right for the very reason that they contradict fundamental laws of logic, the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. Without these laws operating then, meaning becomes redundant and obsolete. When you (Mican) call something 'RIGHT' how can it also be wrong at the same time? It IS either right or it is wrong. It can't be both and still make sense. When it becomes BOTH it loses its identity. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. Its identity is 'dogness.'

    Please address this issue since you continue to walk around it.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    [1] The person wasn't capable of discerning what is objectively moral in this case. [2] He was told what is objectively moral. And since he trusted that God told him the truth, he believes it to be so. He does not know other than what was presented to him. [3] At this point, we could delve into the difference between knowledge and belief. I guess that is up to you.


    [4] Not knowing objective morality is different than it not not existing. So, perhaps, an agreement here. [5] Objective morality is an ideal and it is an ideal which cannot be attained by man. I am assuming you and I agree that man does not speak to God. [6] However, man can strive, albeit imperfectly towards that ideal. He can also be driven towards setbacks which bring him further from that ideal. The difference in these two directions is, itself, subjective. Do we agree on these points?
    ***

    Please excuse me for cutting in, Ibelsd.

    I believe that Mican may need another perspective.

    [1] If God has revealed Himself, and this is the biblical claim - God actually speaking to humanity - then we have a standard that is best (an absolute, objective, universal, unchanging measure for morality). So we can KNOW and we can KNOW objectively in as much as we rightly discern His revelation to us.

    [2] We are all being told what is moral. The difference is the source. Is it subjective or objective. If it is objective then we can understand what is objectively right and wrong.

    [3] Justified true belief is knowledge.

    [4] True!

    [5] That is logical, since we are relative, subjective beings!

    [6] How would humanity ever know it was there (the ideal) unless the ideal has been revealed to humanity? (Again, the Bible claims to be that revelation and I believe I can show reasonable and sound evidence to support this view).

    Since you are a third party, separate from the discussion between Mican and myself, please weigh in on the argument I am making about the laws of logic, specifically the laws of identity and noncontradiction as necessary.

    1) If right is given a specific identity then, how can it be anything other than that identity?
    2) Whose idea of right is the true identity in a world of subjective beings?
    3) Can that ever be known without an objective ideal - a final unchanging reference point?

    Thanks!
    Last edited by PGA2; September 21st, 2017 at 07:35 PM.

  15. #252
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Obviously, these are two conflicting views on the same subject matter - abortion. How can they both be right and still conform to the logical law of identity???
    But then who is saying that they both are right? One can say that one is right and the other is wrong in both the objective sense and the subjective sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It can! I believe I can show the reasonableness of believing in the Christian God is sound and logic.
    What you personally believe is not a valid source of support. If you want to argue that there is indeed an objective moral source that people can access, then you need to show evidence that it exists. And of course the level of support has to reach the level of something that would convince someone who currently disagrees with its existence.

    Until you do that, you are only appealing to what you believe and have not provided anything that equates valid support.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If I want an objective standard then I have to find what is necessary for such a standard. The Bible claims to be His revelation to us. It has what is necessary - an objective Being, a universal standard, absolute distinction of what is right and wrong (Do not kill/murder; Do not steal; Do not lie; Do not covet; Do not commit adultery; love your neighbor).
    But then I could write a book about an objective being and include standards that I claim are absolute and by the standard you've just provided I've presented what is necessary for such a standard. But that does not mean I've actually presented actual objective morals.



    [QUOTE=PGA2;555773]I believe I can MOST reasonably defend such a position (although it takes a lot of work - I have to continually undermine the logic of your atheistic position in doing so). I can also show the reasonableness of God with prophecy.[/quote

    Then you will need to do so if you are going to support that such a thing exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Without invoking God I can still make the argument that abortion is immoral/wrong.
    Objectively wrong? Then do so. I acknowledge that you can make a subjective argument about abortion because anyone can do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    But back to the abortion front; your system of thought does not have what is necessary to say it is 'right,'
    If you mean objectively right, you are correct. But then I am not arguing that it is objective right.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    just that it is the choice of the majority or has been enacted into law by a vote of five-to-four. It is the difference between describing what is (DESCRIPTIVE) as opposed to what should be (PRESCRIPTIVE).
    I would not attempt to argue that abortion is or is not moral based on what the majority thinks, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Your system of thought can only say "I like the woman's 'right' to choose." You can't say this is morally GOOD, even if what you agree with is legislated as legal. All you can do is chirp your opinion and push for it to be enacted into law by popular opinion or by force from the elite who LIKE it too.
    But then that's all ANYONE can do, regardless of what side of the controversy they are on.

    I mean one can say that they are speaking for some higher source when they forward a moral position but since they can't prove they are speaking for anything greater than man, their argument does not rise above another person's admittedly subjective position.

    I mean if one guy says "I think abortion is immoral" and another person says "God holds that abortion is objectively immoral", one is not automatically superior to the other (unless the second person can prove that he is indeed speaking for God). Now, if God himself says something, THEN we have a state moral position that is superior to a common man's opinion but that doesn't matter until someone can prove that God actually said a particular something.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If you would like to debate abortion (without me evoking God) I would be honored to bolster the logic of my position against yours on the basis of a discussion on the following talking points and others
    Well, my position regarding the abortion controversy is that neither side can actually prove their point as ultimately the primary premise for both sides come down to a matter of opinion. I'm actually having this debate on another thread so if you want to focus on abortion, you might want to move there.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) Is the unborn a human being?
    2) Is human life intrinsically valuable?
    3) Is the unborn being a person?
    4) Is taking the life of an innocent human being murder?

    Would you like to comment? (OR, just say and we can take the discussion over to the abortion topic that you have been active in discussing)
    I'd say go over to the other thread if you want to debate abortion. But to be clear, my position regarding the abortion debate is that neither side can prove their position so the pro-life and pro-choice side will always ending up having to agree to disagree. So I personally will not be arguing for legalized abortion but just arguing that no one can prove that abortion should (or should not) be outlawed. So you will have to start the discussion on the issue and therefore I currently decline to comment on those questions. Instead I will respond to what you have to say regarding those questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    However, I raised the abortion issue for the very reason that there is disagreement on whether it is a woman's right to choose or not; whether abortion is wrong, or not. I included a table that shows the countries that believe abortion is right and other countries that believe it is wrong.

    The ISSUE is who is RIGHT?

    There are two distinctly opposite and different views regarding abortion. Which countries and which views are the correct view. Logically, and I can't get you to understand this point, both can't be right for the very reason that they contradict fundamental laws of logic, the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. Without these laws operating then, meaning becomes redundant and obsolete. When you (Mican) call something 'RIGHT' how can it also be wrong at the same time? It IS either right or it is wrong. It can't be both and still make sense. When it becomes BOTH it loses its identity. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. Its identity is 'dogness.'
    But your argument is rooted in begging the question. It starts with the premise that morality is objectively (just like a dog is objectively a dog). Yes, IF morality is objective, then abortion is either right or wrong and can't be neither or both. But if morality is subjective, then abortion is as right or wrong as people think it is right or wrong and it varies from person to person.

    As an example, is Fight Club a good movie? Joe says yes and Frank says no. And to each of them, their answer is correct and no one can prove either of them wrong nor point to an objective standard that proves that one of them is right.
    Last edited by mican333; September 21st, 2017 at 05:48 PM.

  16. #253
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Okay, three points.

    Why would you believe something if it was not better to hold that view?

    I would rather believe an unpleasant truth, than a more pleasant untruth.

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Do you think your system of ethics (what you believe) is BETTER than that of Kim Jong Un's? If not then is it good/better to exploit people, put over 100,000 in prison for opposing you, drown out freedom of speech, indoctrinate and filter what your society hears, murder your half-brother and members of your cabinet, lock up Americans and torture them, threaten to blow up North America and Japan, want to take over South Korea, all to reach your goals of power?
    You are too caught up in this "better" idea. "Better" doesn't make it real. Being true, makes it better....

  17. #254
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The person wasn't capable of discerning what is objectively moral in this case. He was told what is objectively moral. And since he trusted that God told him the truth, he believes it to be so. He does not know other than what was presented to him. At this point, we could delve into the difference between knowledge and belief. I guess that is up to you.
    Credible second-hand knowledge is a very valid foundation for attaining knowledge. As an example, almost everything you learn in school (and therefore know) was told to you by someone else, basically a teacher and what you receive very much counts as knowledge. And God himself telling you what God thinks is very credible source of knowledge on what God thinks so it definitely counts as knowledge. You would know that murder is objectively immoral if God told that that was the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not knowing objective morality is different than it not not existing. So, perhaps, an agreement here. Objective morality is an ideal and it is an ideal which cannot be attained by man. I am assuming you and I agree that man does not speak to God.
    Actually, I do not agree. I'm not saying that man does speak to God but that I don't know either way. Some people DO believe that certain things are objectively immoral and I don't know for a fact that their belief is not rooted in some kind of communication with God. It doesn't have to be God having a conversation with them. If they somehow "know in their hearts" that murder is objectively wrong, maybe that is a more subtle form of communication from God or maybe there's some truth in their religious dogma.

    I've been on ODN for a while and as far as I can tell, I've never seen anyone prove that God does or does not exist. So I'm not going to assume either and therefore I allow that either is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, man can strive, albeit imperfectly towards that ideal. He can also be driven towards setbacks which bring him further from that ideal. The difference in these two directions is, itself, subjective. Do we agree on these points?
    No. As above, I allow for the possibility that some man, or maybe even every man, has some kind of innate knowledge of morality and therefore deep down inside knows what's right and the issue is whether they have the wisdom and strength to do the right thing in any situation.

    Not saying that that is the case but I can't say that I know it's not the case.
    Last edited by mican333; September 24th, 2017 at 08:25 AM.

  18. #255
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "Mican, I have provided clear explanations using specific references to your posts, which show that your terms are ill-defined."
    This is not a statement that I think your OP is ill-defined. This is a statement that I have explained to you why your OP is ill-defined. You seem incapable of actually dealing with issues raised about your definitions and choose to simply make statements in response which contradict them but then withdraw the statements, or just claim that I don't understand your argument. Again, I'm sorry you don't understand the problem as it has been explained to you.

    Here it is again:
    When responding to comments about issues with your definitions, you have responded twice with statements that contradict your previous definitions.
    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".

    Therefore, if you choose to retract your statement of "OM means XYZ" which you made in response to issue I, then you have not responded to issue I.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    I have repeatedly provided you with explanations of why your argument is incoherent to which you have not responded. These have not once been expressions of misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And again, you are responding coherently to the argument so the argument is clearly coherent enough for you to work with.
    There are areas of the argument that are coherent enough to discuss, which goes back to my point how the fact that others are not bringing up your ill-defined definitions is irrelevant, but the main issues I have raised you have not responded to.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Again, I have repeatedly provided you with explanations of why your argument is incoherent to which you have not responded.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because morals have a source. Subjective morals have a subjective source and objective morals have an objective source.
    This is just another assertion. Please support or retract it. How do you know that it's not possible for objective morality to exist without an objective source?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A being that knows what objective morality is. And I suppose the source doesn't have to qualify as a "being".
    First, you have not supported that it requires a source. Second, since you've now stated that the source doesn't have to be a being, then could you elaborate on how this fits with your definition of objective morality? BTW, what was that, again?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    This is again missing the point. Just because one person somehow miraculously knows but can't explain how that the expedition will be successful will not ensure its success, since that is just one person. The expedition where the knowledge ensuring the expedition's success is rationally supported will have a greater chance of success since it will garner greater investment.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    The point is that there is evidence that religious people claiming to adhere to objective morality with consequences from an objective source aren't less likely to commit the crimes they hold as objectively immoral with consequences. Therefore, please support your assertion that they would be less likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Please move on the the societal advantage, since that is actually what would make a moral system superior, not a personal advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    You need to support that the person would be less likely to commit theft just because they think that there are consequences in the afterlife.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    The leap you're making is from "if they exist" to "people adhere to them because of that". People don't just magically adhere to moral positions just because they exist. If they exist but we have no way of reliably adhering to them, then there is no advantage. Basically, all your OP boils down to is that there's an advantage for the few people who, for whatever reason, hold moral positions that by chance end up being the same positions forwarded by some unknown and unknowable objective source which may or may not be a being. Do you honestly believe that this is what makes a superior moral system?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If people murder less because it's objectively immoral to murder then the objective morality against murder has real-world benefits (less murder).
    Again: if people murder less, which you still need to support. Our current evidence shows that those who hold murder as objectively immoral, as forwarded by an objective source, are actually more likely to commit murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    Support or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The more reasons one has to be against murder, the less likely they are to murder.
    Support or retract this claim. Don't you think it's better to have an actual understanding of the rational reasons why you shouldn't do something instead of just being told you'll be punished if you do it? This is one of the main reasons secular societies trend better in many metrics regarding morality and quality of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Per the OP, whoever has it right has the advantage.
    You have as yet failed to demonstrate any valid advantage which would make objective morality from an objective source a superior moral system. Further, it's not simply "whoever has it right", it's "the society which has it right" has an advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    All else being equal, having correct information is better than having incorrect information.
    No. Having correct information for rational reasons is better than simply having correct information.
    Further, you seem to be flip-flopping between the correctness being about which moral positions are correct, and what is the source of the moral positions. For any advantage to be garnered, the society employing the moral system simply needs to be correct about which moral positions to hold, regardless of where they claim to get them from or what the actual source is.

  19. #256
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    As far as I can tell, the debate over whether the argument is ill-defined is a waste of time as in it does not forward the debate.

    First off, whether something is ill-defined is subjective. "Ill-defined" means that someone (in this case you) PERSONALLY is unsatisfied with how something is defined. No matter how well I define something, you can always claim that it's not good enough for you.

    And IF it is indeed ill-defined, the only relevant problem to a debate is that you can't make a coherent response to my OP because it's too ill-defined for you to understand what my argument actually is and therefore you cannot make a relevant response. But of course, that is not the case. You are making very coherent arguments that are completely in-line with what I intended to portray in the OP. That of course doesn't mean that you must concede that the OP is well-defined enough for your satisfaction but then that's only an issue to the extent that I'm concerned how satisfied you are with how well or poorly defined the OP is and at this point, I'm not too concerned with that. You understand it well enough to engage in a coherent debate regarding what I argue in the OP and that's good enough for me.

    So I'm sorry you aren't satisfied enough with how well-defined the OP is but I'm really not interested in hearing you complain about it any further. I'm much more interested in debating the OP (which you clearly understand well enough to debate it) with you.

    So moving on....


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is just another assertion. Please support or retract it. How do you know that it's not possible for objective morality to exist without an objective source?
    Because morality has a source. It's about a standard of right and wrong and therefore there has to be a source that creates the standard. And an objective source requires an objective standard.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is again missing the point. Just because one person somehow miraculously knows but can't explain how that the expedition will be successful will not ensure its success, since that is just one person. The expedition where the knowledge ensuring the expedition's success is rationally supported will have a greater chance of success since it will garner greater investment.
    No, you are missing the point. I'm referring to the person's knowledge helping him invest wisely, not how many investors the expedition gets. You DO agree that when it comes to investing, the better the information one has, the greater advantage one has in making such decisions, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The point is that there is evidence that religious people claiming to adhere to objective morality with consequences from an objective source aren't less likely to commit the crimes they hold as objectively immoral with consequences. Therefore, please support your assertion that they would be less likely.
    I already did but I will do it again. Fear of punishment for doing something is a disincentive for doing it. Therefore those who know that they will be punished in the afterlife for doing a particular thing are less likely to do it all else being equal.

    That is logical support for my assertion.

    And of course you are free to pull out some statistics to make a counter argument but if that's what you want to do, it is up to you to do that. I don't have to support my own argument in a different fashion after I've supported it in a particular way.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please move on the the societal advantage, since that is actually what would make a moral system superior, not a personal advantage.
    I said I would move to the societal advantage once you concede the personal advantage. Do you concede it?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You need to support that the person would be less likely to commit theft just because they think that there are consequences in the afterlife.
    Fear of punishment for doing something gives a person a disincentive to do that thing. That is support. Of course you can challenge my support but you can't say that it hasn't been given.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The leap you're making is from "if they exist" to "people adhere to them because of that".
    It's not a leap. It's part of the scenario. Note I said "IF" it happens which means that I'm not stating that it actually happens.

    So my argument, again, is IF objective morals exist and IF people adhere to those morals, there are real-world advantage. If you don't address the hypothetical scenario presented, then you are not addressing the argument at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again: if people murder less, which you still need to support. Our current evidence shows that those who hold murder as objectively immoral, as forwarded by an objective source, are actually more likely to commit murder.
    Support or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Support or retract this claim. Don't you think it's better to have an actual understanding of the rational reasons why you shouldn't do something instead of just being told you'll be punished if you do it? This is one of the main reasons secular societies trend better in many metrics regarding morality and quality of life.
    Actually, in secular societies we tell people that if they murder, they will be punished - such as they will receive a harsh prison sentence or maybe the death sentence. And I think it's pretty safe to say that this decreases murder compared to societies that do not threaten societal punishment for murder.

    So assuming you agree with me on this, I have supported that threat of punishment is a disincentive.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You have as yet failed to demonstrate any valid advantage which would make objective morality from an objective source a superior moral system.
    Just because you aren't impressed with my supported arguments does not mean that I have not supported my argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Further, it's not simply "whoever has it right", it's "the society which has it right" has an advantage.
    You don't get to alter my argument. My argument does apply to the individual. But then the individual is a microcosm of a society so the more a societies individuals are operating with correct information, the better it is for the society.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No. Having correct information for rational reasons is better than simply having correct information.
    While that is true, it does not rebut my argument. So let me repeat it.

    All else being equal, having correct information is better than having incorrect information. A counter argument would be saying that having incorrect information is better than having correct information.

    I mean I agree with you that having correct information for rational reasons is better than simply having correct information but that in no way rebuts the argument that correct information is better than incorrect information.

    It's better to know that you shouldn't stick your finger in a light socket even if you don't know why should shouldn't than it is to think that it's alright to stick your finger in a light socket.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Further, you seem to be flip-flopping between the correctness being about which moral positions are correct, and what is the source of the moral positions.
    No I'm not. I'm pretty sure the only reason we are discussing the source at all is that you are making an issue of it. If you want to cease discussing the source, then I will have no need to discuss it either.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For any advantage to be garnered, the society employing the moral system simply needs to be correct about which moral positions to hold, regardless of where they claim to get them from or what the actual source is.
    True. But then they cannot be correct on which moral position to hold if objective morality does not exist. In other words, if morality is strictly subjective (there is no objective morality), then the correctness of a moral position is likewise subjective and therefore none can be truly correct. In other words, if morality is subjective, then your morals are only as correct as they correspond to my morals (from my perspective) and my morals are only as correct as they correspond to your morals (from your perspective). No morals actually be correct.

    And please don't read that as a criticism of subjective morality. If there is no objective morality, then subjective morality is superior as the subjective moralist is at least correct on his morals being his own while an objective moralist is following another human's morality because he confuses it with something that a "greater being" has forwarded.
    Last edited by mican333; September 24th, 2017 at 08:06 AM.

  20. #257
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    547
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I consider that an opinion. If you can support this with something more than your own say-so, do so. Otherwise I'll just say that your opinion is noted.
    My apologies to the Op for this off topic post. I will be brief.

    Mican
    I am pretty sure you just scolded me for making this virtually exact same comment to you a few days ago. I told you I see this all the time on ODN, and you said it was "spam" and not allowed.

  21. #258
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My apologies to the Op for this off topic post. I will be brief.

    Mican
    I am pretty sure you just scolded me for making this virtually exact same comment to you a few days ago. I told you I see this all the time on ODN, and you said it was "spam" and not allowed.
    But I didn't make the same comment. "Your opinion is noted" is essentially blowing off an argument and if that's ALL one is saying, then it doesn't forward the debate. But that's not all I said.

    I said more than that in the comment you quoted (I essentially said I'm going to blow off that ONE argument if it's not supported by something other than opinion) and I said A LOT more than that in the post.

    And there's no rule against some spam being in a post (although an opponent is very justified in not responding to a spammy comment) but if that's all there is in a post, then the post itself is spam. So even if my comment was spam, since there was plenty of non-spam in the post, the post would not be in violation of the spam rules.

    And yes, this is off-topic. If you want to discuss this further, PM me.
    Last edited by mican333; September 23rd, 2017 at 07:22 AM.

  22. #259
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Please excuse me for cutting in, Ibelsd.

    I believe that Mican may need another perspective.

    Thanks!
    Actually, I believe the only things Mican needs are to eat, ****, and sleep. But, hey, feel free.

    ---------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Credible second-hand knowledge is a very valid foundation for attaining knowledge. As an example, almost everything you learn in school (and therefore know) was told to you by someone else, basically a teacher and what you receive very much counts as knowledge. And God himself telling you what God thinks is very credible source of knowledge on what God thinks so it definitely counts as knowledge. You would know that murder is objectively immoral if God told that that was the case.
    Knowledge implies a certain amount of skepticism and understanding. Being told by God is exercise of faith and belief. Maybe god is telling you an untruth, as a test of your spirituality. This is not really knowledge, not in any enlightened fashion anyhow.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, I do not agree. I'm not saying that man does speak to God but that I don't know either way. Some people DO believe that certain things are objectively immoral and I don't know for a fact that their belief is not rooted in some kind of communication with God. It doesn't have to be God having a conversation with them. If they somehow "know in their hearts" that murder is objectively wrong, maybe that is a more subtle form of communication from God or maybe there's some truth in their religious dogma.

    I've been on ODN for a while and as far as I can tell, I've never seen anyone prove that God does or does not exist. So I'm not going to assume either and therefore I allow that either is possible.
    I didn't ask what you know. I assumed you believed that rational men don't claim to speak to god. My bad. However, even if someone believes that they have spoken to god, they have no way of knowing if a) the voice was really god and b) whether god was telling them the truth. Again, the point here, is that man simply cannot know what is objectively moral.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. As above, I allow for the possibility that some man, or maybe even every man, has some kind of innate knowledge of morality and therefore deep down inside knows what's right and the issue is whether they have the wisdom and strength to do the right thing in any situation.

    Not saying that that is the case but I can't say that I know it's not the case.
    You can allow for it, but you certainly cannot prove it or support this belief. And, you are certainly free to your own beliefs. However, in terms of offering it as some sort of refutation, it does not really fly.

    Your argument boils down to, in an effort not to concede a point, you're determined to insist on the possibility of fairies and make-believe and since one cannot prove that dragons never existed, then we must allow for the possibility. If you believe man has these innate qualities, then support your claim.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  23. #260
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Knowledge implies a certain amount of skepticism and understanding. Being told by God is exercise of faith and belief. Maybe god is telling you an untruth, as a test of your spirituality. This is not really knowledge, not in any enlightened fashion anyhow.
    Any second-hand knowledge can be questioned. We all went through 12+years of learning things primarily through second hand knowledge (teachers telling us things). And of course for those things that we can't or haven't verified for ourselves (like history and to some extent science), there is room to question what we've learned. But we don't discount everything that we learned second-hand and say it's not actually knowledge because there is some room for doubt.

    Plus, this really feeling like a semantic argument. Whatever you want to call it, it's theoretically possible to receive a level of certainty in objective moral truths that justifies accepting that the morals in question are indeed objectively true. And if the communicator is God, a omnipotent being with unlimited ability, God can make a person more certain of objective moral truths than they are certain of anything else - even their own existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I didn't ask what you know. I assumed you believed that rational men don't claim to speak to god. My bad. However, even if someone believes that they have spoken to god, they have no way of knowing if a) the voice was really god and b) whether god was telling them the truth. Again, the point here, is that man simply cannot know what is objectively moral.
    As I said, God can make sure they know it's God and the truth. But even if there is some room for doubt, how much doubt has to be present before it cannot be considered knowing? As an example, if you saw a white dog on your lawn this morning but didn't record it nor knew of anyone else who saw it, can you be sure you actually saw a white dog? I'd say you could. While it's possible that you imagined it, I'd say you'd be justified in saying you "know" there was a dog on your lawn even though it's possible you are mistaken.

    And likewise, IF God actually talked to someone, I'd say that person can be quite justified in holding the God talked to them. Raising the bar of certainty so high that one argues that the person can't know is likely just based on an artificial raising of the bar to make it fall under the certainty that one needs for their argument.

    So I don't really see an objective argument for saying that one can't know that certain objective morals insist. Your argument seemed to be based on either semantics or setting the bar as you need to for your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You can allow for it, but you certainly cannot prove it or support this belief. And, you are certainly free to your own beliefs. However, in terms of offering it as some sort of refutation, it does not really fly.
    But then my argument just allows for it so I have no need to support that it's actually true.

    Please consider me to be arguing from the agnostic position and therefore hold that whether God actually exists is not known and I will not argue otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your argument boils down to, in an effort not to concede a point, you're determined to insist on the possibility of fairies and make-believe and since one cannot prove that dragons never existed, then we must allow for the possibility. If you believe man has these innate qualities, then support your claim.
    First off, my argument makes no mentions of fairies and things that are generally considered to be make-believe so introducing that stuff is a red herring.

    And my argument is that man-God communication is possible and I can support that by pointing out that no one has supported that it's not possible. Until something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible. If you want to argue that it's impossible or that the odds of is happening are very small, you will need to provide support for that. Otherwise my argument it's possible stands.

 

 
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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
  •