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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I appreciate the input you are having in this thread, I am agreeing alot with your corrections, but I think this is a bit off.
    I don't think that lacking ojective moral duties it means that there can't be any good reasons for doing anything.

    Like going to law school because I want to be a lawyer, is a great reason to go to lawschool. Those reasons just can't ever produce an obligation for anyone. Not a real one.
    Well, of course I'm talking about moral actions, but I didn't make that explicit, so I'll amend it.

    Here: If there is the no objective morality, no perceived moral action actually has any moral value.

    Is that better?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Is it the is/ough fallacy? OR a poor wording?
    Well, I'm not sure. Remember that you brought up the fallacy when I brought up what should rationally be regarded as good reasons for behaving in a given way. But you invoked the is/ought fallacy, so I backed off. Then I thought "Well, if you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', what CAN you get an 'ought' from?"

    Consider what an 'is' is. An 'is' is simply a fact; a state of affairs that exists. So if I can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', and we apply that rule across the board, then there is NO fact from which we can derive an 'ought'. There's literally no reason why we ought to behave in a moral way, including 'God commands it', because 'God commands it' is (assuming it's true) an 'is' statement.

    If facts have no bearing on whether or not we ought to do something, I'd say that's a profoundly difficult problem to surmount in understanding why anyone should behave morally, believer or no.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that is based more on our limited access to those ideas, then it is that the ideas exist or not.
    I think we're talking past one another.

    Here's the thing:

    You're telling me that if any idea I have about morality is subjective, then it doesn't actually have any 'moral' meaning at all. It's akin to William Lane Craig's assertion that, without God, ethics is illusory; deeper meaning is illusory; morality is illusory. This is nonsense.

    Do you have consciousness? Where is it? Can you show it to me? Of course not. Your own consciousness is a completely subjective experience; it's the single most subjective experience any of us can have. Yet not many people (sane ones anyway) will think that, because consciousness is subjective, that it is illusory.

    This is why I balk when someone says something like 'It is not irrational to ignore the fact that torture is harmful to the person being tortured, because some people don't agree that it does'. It might not be harmful on some absurd, cosmic scale, but you have to be utterly irrational to conclude that torturing someone doesn't do them any harm. You have to be completely irrational to conclude that, because someone else might feel they can ignore this fact about torture, that their opinion on it carries equal weight to the considered view of someone who knows it does.

    This goes right back to the question of whether or not (supposing morality is commanded by God) God has good reasons for saying "X" is right or wrong. If he has reasons, then those reasons are brute facts about existence that compel his command, and those brute facts about existence are what give "X" its moral value; not God's command.

    If he doesn't have good reasons, then it's only his commands that God "X" it's moral value. Then if it's only his commands that give something its moral value, that means there are no good reasons why "X" is right or wrong, except that God said so. THIS means that God can say 'rape is bad' in one moment, and 'rape is good' in the next, because he's not bound to any good reason for any of his commands.

    But anyway, I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think they are great questions.
    As to "fuzzy" I understand them like this.
    1) Supposing we agree that objective moral duties exist. What are they and how can we know?
    2) Assuming we "know" one such duty, what makes it the best possible law or duty? I mean suppose one such duty was to rape, is that really the best?
    I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, here. Mican is asking whether objective morality is superior to subjective morality, or not. I'm not sure "superior" has been described well enough to answer the question accurately/fairly.

  2. Thanks MindTrap028, futureboy thanked for this post
  3. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    That really isn't the point. That is the second problem. I'm not here attempting to argue for any specific moral laws.
    If you are unwilling to support how we can determine any one specific objective moral law, then what support do you have for the existence of objective morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I am simply answered your question and giving an example of what those facts look like.
    No, you provided an example of what you claim those facts look like. How did you determine that your example is indeed what those facts look like?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I am content (here) to deny the existence of any objective moral laws, and to argue the consequence of that. Which is hat all things would then be objectively morally neutral.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I thought you are supporting/claiming that objective morality exists? What consequences are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    But to answer your question directly(and thus chase a rabbit a bit) the person who claims a objective moral, is acting consistently with his view, but he is at least POSSIBLY acting consistent with reality. On the other hand, the subjective moralist is inherently acting inconsistent with reality, imagining things that do not exist and acting as though they do apparently to the point of force.. with a gun even
    Are you honestly saying that anyone who doesn't hold to your view of objective morality is just imagining things and making stuff up which is inconsistent with reality? Do you deny that there currently exist moral systems which function successfully and completely without what you claim to be an objective source?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Is threat of force what establishes moral obligations?
    It depends on the moral system being adhered to. Within many secular moral systems, one could easily posit that you have a moral obligation to give the mugger your wallet in order to prevent harm to your children. Based on your previous statement, it seemed as thought you were claiming that you have no moral obligation to give the mugger your wallet under any circumstances. Is that the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    That is a very different question than the point and argument I am making.
    No, you attempted to support why an objective moralist is allowed to leave off the "I think" when they make claims about reality, and I asked you how the objective moralist determines that what they claim is in fact aligned which reality. For your claim (that an objective moralist is justified in leaving off the "I think") to have any value, you need to support how the objective moralist determines that what they're claiming to know about reality is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I would say I observe it to be true. I could be wrong, and that is absolutly possible.
    The conclusions you make based on your observations are subject to your observations. How did you determine that what you have observed is objectively true?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Ah, your talking about ediquit. Like it's rude to fart at the dinner table, and so one has an "obligation" and "duty" to not do it.
    Interesting... Do you accept that under the principles of etiquette we have a duty to not fart at the dinner table because it's rude to do so? Or are you saying that farting at the dinner table is objectively wrong, absolutely, regardless of the circumstances?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Also, you can not "derive" duties from facts. That is the "is ought fallacy".
    Where does the "ought" come from within the objective morality you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Simply put, you can correctly observe that X,Y,Z does not serve ABC purpose. That in no way establishes an "ought" for anyone.
    Please re-read the last portion of my post to which you were responding, where I explained how we derive "oughts" within our secular moral system from the goals we agree upon as a society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    And please explain what "obligation"(Ie duty) you are talking about, how am I obligated to serve that goal? Is it because you have a gun and I thus am obligated to give you my wallet? (Ie force)
    Again, it depends on the moral system to which you are adhering. If you're talking about a secular moral system which holds the goal of minimizing unnecessary harm, then you would have the obligation to give the mugger your wallet in order to achieve that goal. This is actually how our moral systems work, and why whenever someone does something we feel is terrible, it's because they either don't hold to those goals or they hold other goals above them. This is also how we socialize our young, by providing them with an understanding of our society's goals and how their actions align (or don't) with them. At no point is any appeal to an objective morality required, nor would it be justified.

    Last question: Is is morally wrong to own another human being as your property?

  4. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    If you are unwilling to support how we can determine any one specific objective moral law, then what support do you have for the existence of objective morality?
    I argue for objective moral truths, and thier consiquence.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, you provided an example of what you claim those facts look like. How did you determine that your example is indeed what those facts look like?
    Yes, it is an example the claim about objective moral laws and what one would look like if it existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I thought you are supporting/claiming that objective morality exists? What consequences are you talking about?
    My claim is that objective truths about morality exist (the poorly worded moral truths), I haven't intended to hold that objective moral laws exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Are you honestly saying that anyone who doesn't hold to your view of objective morality is just imagining things and making stuff up which is inconsistent with reality? Do you deny that there currently exist moral systems which function successfully and completely without what you claim to be an objective source?
    how it "functions" is not relevant to truth.
    Suppose we all pretended that we are in the matrix and living in a dream world, where everything else works exactly like reality.

    That view would function, it would not make it true or make one in the world who pointed out that there is no matrix any less correct.

    So then, the claim is
    1) Is it imagined. .. Which it is completly in your mind, so yea it's imagined. Many may share that imagination but it is no different than if we were all playing the same D&D game, and just as valid in truth value.
    2) Is it inconsistent with reality.. Yea, it is beause we don't live in a D&D game, no matter how many people are playing. Your +5 smitting sword against rape, doesn't really exist. It is really just a normal gun where you shoot people who disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    It depends on the moral system being adhered to. Within many secular moral systems, one could easily posit that you have a moral obligation to give the mugger your wallet in order to prevent harm to your children. Based on your previous statement, it seemed as thought you were claiming that you have no moral obligation to give the mugger your wallet under any circumstances. Is that the case?
    Apart from the existance of an objective moral law, I could kill my child and beat the mugger to death with their feamer bone.
    And I have just as much "obligation" to do that as anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, you attempted to support why an objective moralist is allowed to leave off the "I think" when they make claims about reality, and I asked you how the objective moralist determines that what they claim is in fact aligned which reality. For your claim (that an objective moralist is justified in leaving off the "I think") to have any value, you need to support how the objective moralist determines that what they're claiming to know about reality is true.
    Yea, it was a point about the object of the claim, not the ability to verify it or establish it.

    Shouldn't we at least attempt to make claims about reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The conclusions you make based on your observations are subject to your observations. How did you determine that what you have observed is objectively true?
    This is not really an interesting question here, because all claims would face the same problem.
    How do you know things, is a general problem regarding all knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Interesting... Do you accept that under the principles of etiquette we have a duty to not fart at the dinner table because it's rude to do so? Or are you saying that farting at the dinner table is objectively wrong, absolutely, regardless of the circumstances?
    No, I'm saying that all your subjective moral claims amount to exactly as serious as farting at a dinner table.
    I farted at your table, and you don't like it.. boo hooo. So what? I'm not really obligated to follow those rules, especially if I have some other equally valid, equally true "etiquite" where farting is good and I payed you complement, or served my own desires..whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Where does the "ought" come from within the objective morality you support?
    Here I am mainly supporting objective neutrality. So that position would hold that there are no moral obligations as there is nothing in existance that could possibly obligate us in reality.

    Getting the feeling your not interested in that portion (the main point).

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Please re-read the last portion of my post to which you were responding, where I explained how we derive "oughts" within our secular moral system from the goals we agree upon as a society.
    You used the word derived, but it doesn't logically followto an ought and I explained how and why.

    Your argument form went like this.
    We observe fact 1,2,3
    We set goal A,B,C
    Therefore you and I are obligate to X,y,Z

    That is the Is, ought fallacy.
    with an arbirary goal put in the middle.
    The facts can be true, but there is no reason to accept the goal, and even having accepted the goal there is no real obligation created by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, it depends on the moral system to which you are adhering.
    It is important to unerstand and grasp what you are actually saying here.
    your saying it depends on the mindset of a particular person.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    If you're talking about a secular moral system which holds the goal of minimizing unnecessary harm, then you would have the obligation to give the mugger your wallet in order to achieve that goal.
    This may explain a thinking and reasoning, but it is not an obligation and there is no reason to belive that YOUR moral system would creat any obligation for me and certainly you think the robber has some obligations.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    This is actually how our moral systems work, and why whenever someone does something we feel is terrible, it's because they either don't hold to those goals or they hold other goals above them. This is also how we socialize our young, by providing them with an understanding of our society's goals and how their actions align (or don't) with them. At no point is any appeal to an objective morality required, nor would it be justified.
    You can very well explain how and what people are thinking. Just like why you killed that dire wolf with your staff of splender.
    It doesn't make it any less made up, or any more a reflection of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Last question: Is is morally wrong to own another human being as your property?
    good question, are you asking about my personal brain state, the state of our culture, the state of our world, or the state of reality?
    Like are you asking what gravity is, or what I imagine dark energy is?

    ---On brain states--
    A question about my brain state is really useless, because any number of contradictory states could exist as equally true.
    like the answer to your question is "I am currently thinking that it would be wonderful to own another person"..
    Oops
    "Now I'm thinking it would be wonderful to be owned by another person"
    "Now I'm thinking it is best for the total least harm to be done if people could be owned, especially the poor and stupid".

    Bonus question. What obligations for you were created above? If none, then exactly what do you believe YOUR brain state does?
    (multiply the above answer for culture/world)

    ---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, of course I'm talking about moral actions, but I didn't make that explicit, so I'll amend it.

    Here: If there is the no objective morality, no perceived moral action actually has any moral value.

    Is that better?
    Sorr... no.. I know moral actions, but I mean anything.
    Moral laws are not relevant to reasons for doing things. In that it can be a reason, but it is not required for all reasons.

    But yea, no actual moral value. It is all penutbutter.
    Actually, I'm thinking "no actual moral laws" because a zero value though it is a lack of value is kinda a value. So I have tried to avoid that and make the proper distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, I'm not sure. Remember that you brought up the fallacy when I brought up what should rationally be regarded as good reasons for behaving in a given way. But you invoked the is/ought fallacy, so I backed off. Then I thought "Well, if you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', what CAN you get an 'ought' from?"

    Consider what an 'is' is. An 'is' is simply a fact; a state of affairs that exists. So if I can't get an 'ought' from an 'is', and we apply that rule across the board, then there is NO fact from which we can derive an 'ought'. There's literally no reason why we ought to behave in a moral way, including 'God commands it', because 'God commands it' is (assuming it's true) an 'is' statement.

    If facts have no bearing on whether or not we ought to do something, I'd say that's a profoundly difficult problem to surmount in understanding why anyone should behave morally, believer or no.
    First of all, this is really a great question.
    To my point here in the thread, it just serves to strengthen the objectivly moraly neutral narture of all things, which make any "ought" statement objectivly false.

    The only problem with what your pointing out, is that in the case of objective moral duties, the ought is also a fact. It is the definition of what an ought in reality looks like, the only logically possible form an ought can take.
    That is why I have said that "subjective morality" is a misnomer and isn't morlaity at all. It fails to be morality in actuality specifically because it fails to creat oughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I think we're talking past one another.
    Terribly sorry old bean.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I think we're talking past one another.

    Here's the thing:

    You're telling me that if any idea I have about morality is subjective, then it doesn't actually have any 'moral' meaning at all. It's akin to William Lane Craig's assertion that, without God, ethics is illusory; deeper meaning is illusory; morality is illusory. This is nonsense.
    Yes, and I woul appreciate a deeper response to that point than simple claim to nonsense.
    Above we have seen that the is/ought fallacy is a powerful objection to any so far offered "reason" for an "ought".
    And if all morality is an illusion, that really does make us the cosmic orphans Craig speaks about.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubYIpJIKlJg

    Personally, it is greatly distressing to consider a world where objective moral laws/obligations do not exist.
    Then all I see is that My personal distate for certain actions are not logical justification enough for me to pretend that anyone else has any Obligation to bow down to them.
    The number of otherwise logical thinkers who do play that game is scary. There is absolutly nothing to keep the mob from throwing me out of their group and backing up their imaginations with actual force.
    except of course my recognition of that force to be bullied into line. In that sense I am simply lucky to be born on the winning side of WWII.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Do you have consciousness? Where is it? Can you show it to me? Of course not. Your own consciousness is a completely subjective experience; it's the single most subjective experience any of us can have. Yet not many people (sane ones anyway) will think that, because consciousness is subjective, that it is illusory.
    Well, meaning is not like conciusness, and as a point of fact YOUR conciousness could very well be an illusion, and if I am to practice extreme skepticism, it probably is.
    AFter all, I think therefore I am.. but I'm not so sure about you.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    This is why I balk when someone says something like 'It is not irrational to ignore the fact that torture is harmful to the person being tortured, because some people don't agree that it does'. It might not be harmful on some absurd, cosmic scale, but you have to be utterly irrational to conclude that torturing someone doesn't do them any harm. You have to be completely irrational to conclude that, because someone else might feel they can ignore this fact about torture, that their opinion on it carries equal weight to the considered view of someone who knows it does.
    O no, I'm not arguing that torurte doesn't cause pain, or "harm". I argue that there is nothing inherent about harm to make it such as to be a thing we are obligated to avoid.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    This goes right back to the question of whether or not (supposing morality is commanded by God) God has good reasons for saying "X" is right or wrong. If he has reasons, then those reasons are brute facts about existence that compel his command, and those brute facts about existence are what give "X" its moral value; not God's command.
    Sure, but here I am not bringing God into it. He may ultimatly be nessissary for any objective moral laws, but that doesn't mean I must have the explination for the explination.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If he doesn't have good reasons, then it's only his commands that God "X" it's moral value. Then if it's only his commands that give something its moral value, that means there are no good reasons why "X" is right or wrong, except that God said so. THIS means that God can say 'rape is bad' in one moment, and 'rape is good' in the next, because he's not bound to any good reason for any of his commands.

    But anyway, I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point.
    Beside the 3rd option often discussed in regards to this delimma, I want to point out.
    This is really a strange objection for moral subjectionest to hold to, because it is exactly what the subjectionest appeals to in reality.
    On subjectionism, we should embrase the validity of whimsical moral judgments and values. After all, if God's word actually creates reality (something our word lacks, and I have objected to here)
    Then so what if morality changes, it is no less reality then if the value of gravity changed.

    I know, I understand the point of the objection to defeat the enemy that is objective moral truths (not to you), but it is quite a hypicritical objection.

    That is justa rabbit, you can dismiss it as it isn't relevant to the main discussion. I really don't mind you repeating things sometimes it helps me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, here. Mican is asking whether objective morality is superior to subjective morality, or not. I'm not sure "superior" has been described well enough to answer the question accurately/fairly.
    Fair enough.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  6. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That simply assumes that such a thing can exist. I haven't seen any support or even an explination of what that is.
    First off, I am not making the argument that such a thing exists so no, I'm not assuming it exists. I posit that it's possible that it exists and it's a logical truism that unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible and therefore I have supported my position that "subjective moral duties" may exist. And I'm not buying that you don't understand what that means since it's something that we have been debating for a while now. But if you are unclear about what any of those words mean, you should consult a dictionary.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Burden shifting. You ASSUME something, and then expect me to support a refutation.
    Do better.
    My argument does fine so your request that I "do better" is just silly, not to mention condescending - please be respectful. Your rebuttal seems to not even address my argument (it in no way assumes anything) so I will repeat it and hope for a coherent rebuttal. So I will repeat it:

    It's an objective fact that moral duties exist. Right now, we are all obeying various moral duties - such as abstaining from may immoral acts, like murder. And since no one has proven the objective morality exists, it's possible that these duties exist in a universe where there is no objective morality.

    This argument in no way shifts the burden. It stands until you offer a coherent rebuttal.

    ---------- Post added at 12:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    1. Believers being correct more frequently than non-believers in no way suggests to us that they are better at identifying the source of morality; it could easily be the case that they happen to be guessing a little better than non-believers. This not the same as scoring better on a test where someone actually has the answers. Supposing that WE need to know who's better positioned (since God presumably already knows), in order for them to actually be better positioned as far as WE can tell, theyíd have to show US objectively that 1) the source exists 2) the information they have was gotten directly from the source 3) the information they have is unaltered. So I just canít see that being right indicates TO US that theyíre better at identifying the source.
    If one knows the right answer but can't find a way to prove that they know the answer to someone else, it doesn't change the fact that they know more than the person they can't convince. So assuming theists do know that objective morality exists, they have knowledge that the rest of lack and the fact that they can't convince us that they know doesn't change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2. I think itís pretty much a given that thereís no resolution to be had in this thread; itís about as fruitful as 14 years of debates on this site about the existence of a creator deity - none of us are smart enough to thwart the philosophical dead-end that awaits us. This is why Iím couching my claims in the realm of possibility rather than making positive claims. I appreciate that youíre willing to entertain it (I donít mean that sarcastically at all; sorry if it sounds that way), but, in my humble opinion, I think you know as well as I do that no definitive answer awaits us, here. Iím just trying to add interesting content to the conversation; nothing more.
    Sure. I do think what the OP forwards is pretty irrefutable and I wouldn't have bothered to make this thread if I hadn't debated this topic before with MT. So you are finding some related areas to debate some odd points and that's great. So I approve of your input.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3. If course itís not a given that we donít have access to objective morality; note that I didnít say we did. I said that it is unknown whether we have access to objective morality; we have access to it in theory. So, insofar as I can tell, the table is correct. We donít know if objective morality exists and we donít know if we have access to it. We might, but the only thing we can say definitively about objective morality is that we donít know if we know anything about it. This is not true for secular moral theory. We DO know it exists; we DO have access to it. What we DONíT know is to what degree we are correct, if at all.
    Right. But if objective morality does exist, then the secular moral theory is wrong and shouldn't be abided by. I think it's better to have no answers than the wrong answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    4. Having access to a thing could be paramount to its superiority. 10,000 feet under water, the earth's general surface is a far superior breathing environment that the pressurized submarine, with recycled O2 and vulnerabilities to failure. But 10,000 feet under water, it's the more superior thing available.
    It depends on whether having access to the thing makes things better. When we had access to only the "flat-earth" theory, that didn't make it superior to the round-earth theory. Accessing the flat-earth theory almost certainly slowed down people's acceptance of the round earth theory when it was first introduced ("You're saying the earth is round? That's silly! We all know it's flat!").

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    5. Yes, it could be the case that we tend to agree on certain moral values and duties (such as rape or murder) because the theoretical creator instilled this in us. But itís just as likely that morality is a product of evolution. Indeed, there is some evidence that non-human animals consciously exhibit behaviors that could be called moral; itís entirely possible that humans, having more sophisticated brains, exhibit more sophisticated expressions of these behaviors.
    I'm not attempting to argue which is more likely. I'm saying that we can theoretically access objective morality without religion or some other external information source regarding morality.

  7. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  8. #45
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Mican,

    Good conversation; thanks for rolling with it as long as you have. (It looks like you accidentally attributed some of my comments to MT in your last post, just FYI)

    At this point I think we’re starting to talk in circles a little bit, because we’re essentially back to a variation of ‘If it’s true that a perfectly objective moral system exists, then it’s the best moral system.’, and when you distil that, you’re left with something like ‘If the best thing exists, it’s better than the other things’ – true, but a little bit like Odysseus and his endless burden. We’re getting to the point where if they know is a factor, which begs the question of what we mean by “knowing” (as opposed to varying degrees of faith and so on), which goes right about to the hamster wheel of the God debate.

    You did touch on your aim to show that morality can be objective. I agree that it can be something like ‘objective’, which is what I was touching on in post #3, and at the end of my response to MT below. (Again, we’ve come full circle).



    MT

    Thanks for your comments.

    First, respectfully, I think you’re a little all over the map with your terminology. Let me see if I can do some sorting for you, just to help “straighten the line”, as it were.

    (Please note that everything I’m about to say is the product of personal study of professional work. I have not received any formal training on this subject.)

    In my very amateur studies of the subject, I find that there is often two contexts in which people use the term “moral value” – One refers to all acts in general, and the other refers to specific kinds of morally good acts.

    Regarding all acts in general

    At the very top of morality, we have conscious acts. Any conscious act has one of the following moral values:

    • morally good
    • morally evil
    • amoral (morally neutral; neither good nor evil)

    These are not values like numbers; they are defining characteristics of all acts.

    Regarding specific kinds of morally good acts

    This kind of “moral value” refers a morally good act, and whether or not it is morally obligatory.

    If an act is morally good, but not obligatory, we can call that act a “moral value”. If an act is morally good and IS obligatory, then we can call that a “moral duty”.

    Examples:

    • Donating money to a specific charity is morally good, but we’re not morally obliged to give to charity, because if “give to charity” was a moral duty, we’d wind up giving our money away any time we knew about a new charity. Donating money to a charity in this scenario would be a moral value
    • Stopping a rape in progress would be a moral duty; as moral agents we are obliged to interfere with rape if we are able, because a failure to help in such a case would constitute passive complicity; we’d just as guilty as the rapist for the rape insofar as our inaction directly contributed to the success of the rape.

    So when we say “moral value”, we tend to refer to the moral status of any given act (morally good, morally evil, amoral). When we say “moral values and duties”, we tend to refer to good acts that are either optional or obligatory.

    When it comes to the is-ought question, the problem I’m pointing to is that at some arbitrary point in a sea of reasons, people simply assume that moral “oughts” arise. With moral subjectivists, it arises out of things like the harm principle, empathy, social cohesion, and so on. With theistic moral objectivists, it arises from God’s command. But here is the problem:

    When you say that a moral “ought” cannot rise out of the facts I present (such as harm), then there’s no reason to expect that a moral “ought” can rise out of facts you present (such as ‘God commanded it’). If you claim that God’s command carries some special dispensational power, I can simply ask “How does God’s saying it make it special?” It’s a completely fair question, and the objectivist simply assuming that God can make a thing morally special because he said so is just as empty as the subjectivist deferring to things like the harm principle.

    You’re right. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. So at some point, you simply have to accept that some “is” is good enough reason to behave in a certain way. It's up to the individual, of course, but that doesn't mean that the individual is right.

    (P.S. I resent the implication that I'm being hypocritical by pointing out that the author of morality should have reasons for commanding "X" to be right or wrong, or we don't have good reasons to think "X" is objectively wrong. I also resent the idea that I view objective morality as some sort of enemy. This isn't 2007, and I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply sharing what I've studied about the subject to stimulate conversation. So, respectfully, I would appreciate going forward if you wouldn't operate under the assumption that I'm attacking or trying to 'win' anything.")

  9. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Dio thanks for the comments, and contributions. Can't give you rep, but you deserve it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    First, respectfully, I think you’re a little all over the map with your terminology. Let me see if I can do some sorting for you, just to help “straighten the line”, as it were.

    (Please note that everything I’m about to say is the product of personal study of professional work. I have not received any formal training on this subject.)

    In my very amateur studies of the subject, I find that there is often two contexts in which people use the term “moral value” – One refers to all acts in general, and the other refers to specific kinds of morally good acts.
    Quite right, just grasping at a way to communicate the distinctions I'm pointing out, will do better.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    When it comes to the is-ought question, the problem I’m pointing to is that at some arbitrary point in a sea of reasons, people simply assume that moral “oughts” arise. With moral subjectivists, it arises out of things like the harm principle, empathy, social cohesion, and so on. With theistic moral objectivists, it arises from God’s command. But here is the problem:

    When you say that a moral “ought” cannot rise out of the facts I present (such as harm), then there’s no reason to expect that a moral “ought” can rise out of facts you present (such as ‘God commanded it’). If you claim that God’s command carries some special dispensational power, I can simply ask “How does God’s saying it make it special?” It’s a completely fair question, and the objectivist simply assuming that God can make a thing morally special because he said so is just as empty as the subjectivist deferring to things like the harm principle.
    The main thrust of my argument here is that you are correct people do generally assume at some point that oughts arise. That thought is wrong, and objectively so. While you may argue to varying degrees that God suffers the same problem, I am not here offering Devin command theory to defend that.
    My position is that the source can not possibly be humans. When I say "I think dark energy exists". You can look at the world and say no it does not.
    That is what I am doing here. One says "I think giving to charity has the moral value of being good, but not obligatory". We can look, and see that giving to charity posses no objective moral value.
    So if you said you thought the ball was blue, and I could show objectively that it lacked any color then logically you are wrong.
    Same with moral duties.
    The kicker is that the moral subjectivity STARTS by rejecting as true the existence of objective moral values and duties. Which means that little "i think" phrase is not even an attempt to describe external reality.

    Of course it makes sense that people act according to what they think, but as you said that doesn't mean they are right and in this case they are demonstrably wrong. If that is true, what does that really mean for morality? It is reduced to at best a shared delusion that people insist is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    (P.S. I resent the implication that I'm being hypocritical by pointing out that the author of morality should have reasons for commanding "X" to be right or wrong, or we don't have good reasons to think "X" is objectively wrong. I also resent the idea that I view objective morality as some sort of enemy. This isn't 2007, and I'm not attacking anything. I'm simply sharing what I've studied about the subject to stimulate conversation. So, respectfully, I would appreciate going forward if you wouldn't operate under the assumption that I'm attacking or trying to 'win' anything.")
    Sorry, just tossing a thought around. I certainly wasn't trying to apply it to you personally. Please ignore that section.

    --------------
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, I am not making the argument that such a thing exists so no, I'm not assuming it exists.
    VS
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's an objective fact that moral duties exist.
    Dude. really. You barely made it five lines without discrediting what you said.
    Try again.


    It is important for you to understand that my argument has been in the form of
    If objective moral duties do not exist, then no moral duties are possible.
    See is/ough fallacy, see inability of humans to manifest actual duties for others.

    You just keep stepping in the is/ough fallacy and ignoring the objection without ever addressing it. Then you are going to tell me it stands until rebutted.
    Just step back and try to understand the argument that is being forwarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This argument in no way shifts the burden. It stands until you offer a coherent rebuttal.
    The rebuttal is the application of my general argument. There are no moral duties if objective ones don't exist. Per my argument.
    At best you are describing how people act and what they are thinking. You have in now way supported the existence of actual moral duties.

    You have not established this especially in it's subjective form or as even possibly arising from it's subjective form and reasoning.
    That is what I have extensively addressed, and you are doing exactly as I said. Assuming what you need to prove, and then shifting the burden.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have supported my position that "subjective moral duties" may exist. And I'm not buying that you don't understand what that means since it's something that we have been debating for a while now. But if you are unclear about what any of those words mean, you should consult a dictionary.
    No I seriously don't understand what you mean or how it works. You haven't bothered to say how it does work or support that it can, or even enumerate what it means.

    I have at least attempted to convey the idea, though my terminology in referring to it has lacked precision.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  11. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    If an act is morally good, but not obligatory, we can call that act a “moral value”. If an act is morally good and IS obligatory, then we can call that a “moral duty”.
    Examples:

    • Donating money to a specific charity is morally good, but we’re not morally obliged to give to charity, because if “give to charity” was a moral duty, we’d wind up giving our money away any time we knew about a new charity. Donating money to a charity in this scenario would be a moral value
    • Stopping a rape in progress would be a moral duty; as moral agents we are obliged to interfere with rape if we are able, because a failure to help in such a case would constitute passive complicity; we’d just as guilty as the rapist for the rape insofar as our inaction directly contributed to the success of the rape.

    So when we say “moral value”, we tend to refer to the moral status of any given act (morally good, morally evil, amoral). When we say “moral values and duties”, we tend to refer to good acts that are either optional or obligatory.
    I don't quite agree with your definition of "obligation". Let me provide a dictionary definition.

    "an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment"

    If a person feels that their morality dictates that they should be charitable, then they are obligated (morally bound) to give to charity with some regularity (and "regularly" does not have to mean that they consistently give their last dollar away - giving $20 a week to a charity would suffice as fulfilling a moral obligation to be charitable.

    And I'm trying to be nit-picky. I think that this is an important distinction - it should be recognized that one can have a moral duty/obligation to one's own morality as opposed to saying that obligations and duties require something external (like a codified law).

    ---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dude. really. You barely made it five lines without discrediting what you said.
    Try again.
    Your inability to get my arguments right is not the fault of my arguments. I think you need to pay closer attention to what I'm saying before you say that my arguments discredit themselves. There is no contradiction between my two arguments. I will repost them and explain how they are not saying opposing things.

    Argument 1: "First off, I am not making the argument that such a thing exists so no, I'm not assuming it exists."

    What is "it"? Subjective moral duties. I have never argued that they actually exist - only that they can exist. So again, I am not assuming that they exist.

    Argument 2: "It's an objective fact that moral duties exist."

    I am saying that moral duties exist but I am not saying that subjective moral duties exist. In other words, moral duties definitely exist but we don't know if they arise from an objective source or a subjective source. So while we know that moral duties exist (by observation), we don't know if subjective moral duties exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is important for you to understand that my argument has been in the form of
    If objective moral duties do not exist, then no moral duties are possible.
    See is/ough fallacy, see inability of humans to manifest actual duties for others.

    You just keep stepping in the is/ough fallacy and ignoring the objection without ever addressing it.
    No. I have directly rebutted it. My argument says that your argument is wrong and I have supported it. Let me repeat it and then re-state it via logic chain.


    It's an objective fact that moral duties exist. Right now, we are all obeying various moral duties - such as abstaining from may immoral acts, like murder. And since no one has proven the objective morality exists, it's possible that these duties exist in a universe where there is no objective morality.

    1. It's an objective fact that moral duties exist (via direct evidence of people following them all of the time - not murdering, etc).
    2. Moral duties require morality.
    3. We do not know if morality is objective or subjective so it could be either (and if you are going to argue that it's proven that morality is objective, support or retract).
    4. Therefore moral duties, which do exist, are either based on objective or subjective morality.
    5. Since we don't know if morality is obj or subj, it could be either
    6. Therefore moral duties could have a obj basis or a subj basis.
    7. Therefore moral duties may have a subj basis
    8. Therefore your argument that moral duties cannot exist without objective morality is incorrect.

    This argument DIRECTLY rebuts the notion that moral duties cannot exist without objective morality so your complaints that it doesn't are incorrect and basically show that you aren't understanding my rebuttal.

    And as I believe we've covered the "duties" argument in the past and as I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that the issue came down to the definition of "duty", I do insist that we use a dictionary definition of the word if the meaning of the word becomes a primary issue.

  12. #48
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    MT,

    Again, thanks for your comments.

    Let me keep this short and sweet.

    In your opinion, are there reasons not to rape someone, apart from God saying “Do not rape”?

    If so, what are some of those reasons?

    (If you have reasons, please be as concise as you can with your reasons; “because it harms the victim; “because it violates their bodies”, etc.)




    Mican,

    With a moral duty, you're compelled to act every time you encounter "X", if you have the ability to do so (consider the rape example). With a moral value, you're not obliged to act, but it is good if you do so.

    In my example, if "give to charity" was a moral duty, then one would be obliged to give to charity, every time they encounter one.

  13. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Mican,

    With a moral duty, you're compelled to act every time you encounter "X", if you have the ability to do so (consider the rape example). With a moral value, you're not obliged to act, but it is good if you do so.

    In my example, if "give to charity" was a moral duty, then one would be obliged to give to charity, every time they encounter one.
    I see no reason to accept this definition of "moral duty". Where in the definition of "moral duty" does it say that one must do X at every opportunity to do so? And the fact that SOME moral duties do indeed have such a requirement (such as consistently not kill or rape) does not mean that they all do.

    I mean I provided an example of someone having a moral duty to oneself to give to charity by giving $20 a week. If you are going to say that that does not qualify as someone abiding by a moral duty, please support that with some kind of evidence (with semantic arguments, which this appears to be, a dictionary source is the typical means of support).

  14. #50
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see no reason to accept this definition of "moral duty".
    That's fine. Would you be willing to grant that there are some good acts that we are duty-bound to commit, and other good acts that we are not necessarily duty-bound to commit? Or, would you agree that there are situations where an action would be morally good, but not morally obligatory?

  15. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. But if objective morality does exist, then the secular moral theory is wrong and shouldn't be abided by. I think it's better to have no answers than the wrong answer.
    I think care should be taken with defining our terms to avoid conflating them. Secular moral theory contains within it the process of making objective moral evaluations based on facts, so I'm not entirely sure is as clear-cut as "Objective morality = theistic morality, and subjective morality = secular morality".

    =========================

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I argue for objective moral truths, and thier consiquence.
    You've already confirmed that your "objective moral truths" are simply facts about morals. If that's all you're arguing for, then sure, there are facts about morals (some examples being: "morals exist", "we currently have no evidence for the existence of objective morals from an external source"). You've yet to explain what the consequences are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Yes, it is an example the claim about objective moral laws and what one would look like if it existed.
    Let's re-cap:
    MT: "It is always wrong to rape and torture children for fun. So everyone has a moral duty not to do such things. This is an objective moral fact. Meaning, it is not referring to the state of my brain, it is referring to external reality that applies to everyone like it or not."
    2. FB: "How did you determine that not raping and torturing children for fun is an objective moral fact?"
    3. MT: "I am simply answered your question and giving an example of what those facts look like."

    So for the bold portion of #2 you actually should have written "This would be an objective moral fact, if any actually do exist." Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    My claim is that objective truths about morality exist (the poorly worded moral truths), I haven't intended to hold that objective moral laws exist.
    In post #35, you wrote that a specific moral law is a fact about morality and exists in reality:
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    These are "facts" about morality. A fact about raping and murdering for fun, is that it is against a moral law that exist in reality separate from what anyone thinks.
    So which is it? Are you arguing that it's a fact that either objective moral laws exist or the don't, or are you arguing that there exist certain moral laws (like "it's wrong to rape and murder for fun") which are facts about objective morality?

    I had prepared a longer response, but after reading your posts to Dio, it's clear that while you actually believe that our morality ultimately comes from a deity, you don't think you have to support that belief.

    You keep hinting at the consequences of there not actually being any objective morality handed down to us by a deity and us being left to our own devices. However, the only real consequence you've offered is that if objective morality from a deity doesn't exist, then we don't have objective morality, since you appear to be defining objective morality as necessarily coming from a deity.

    It also seems as though you think that even though our societies appear to have done quite well in creating their own moral systems which are able to objectively evaluate actions, we're all just imagining things which don't exist in reality, and really we're unconsciously taking our morals from the objective source which is your deity.

    As Dio explained, we can't even get an "ought" from a deity, so how is claiming that the "ought" comes from a deity any better than us recognizing that we have to decide by ourselves what "oughts" we ought to have? Again, that is unless you're defining the "ought" literally as "commanded by a deity".

    There very well may not be any objective morals which we could obtain from some nebulous place outside our reality, we just don't know. The bottom line, however, is that we are stuck together on this planet, and we're also stuck dealing with reality on reality's terms. The question we must then answer is "How do we go about finding the best way to co-exist on this planet?"

    So far, your response seems to be nothing more than "Well, if we don't get our morals from an objective source which is a deity, then there's nothing which objectively obligates us to do anything".

  16. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    That's fine. Would you be willing to grant that there are some good acts that we are duty-bound to commit, and other good acts that we are not necessarily duty-bound to commit? Or, would you agree that there are situations where an action would be morally good, but not morally obligatory?
    That's kind of a tricky one, actually. I mean if someone does something good because their morality tells them that they should, it would seem that by definition they are fulfilling an obligation to their own morality. So one could say the only exception is if they accidentally do something good (as in take an action that qualifies as fulfilling their moral obligation without the intent of fulfilling their moral obligation, like accidentally tripping a fleeing criminal).

    There can be exceptions, but I would say that anytime you do something morally positive because you feel that it's the right thing to do, you are fulfilling a moral obligation.

    ---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I think care should be taken with defining our terms to avoid conflating them. Secular moral theory contains within it the process of making objective moral evaluations based on facts, so I'm not entirely sure is as clear-cut as "Objective morality = theistic morality, and subjective morality = secular morality".
    I would say that while all secular morality is subjective morality, not all subjective morality is secular morality and while all religious morality (Western religion, anyway) is objectively based, not all objective morality is religious.

    I don't see how secular morality can be anything but subjective. I mean one can rationally observe what causes harm or theorize that morality is objectively derived from evolution, the "should and should not" still comes from the human mind.

  17. #53
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's kind of a tricky one, actually.
    Yeah, I agree with you, and Iím quite sympathetic to your point about an individualís personal feeling of obligation to act. Itís exactly this sort of grey area that animates the objections to subjective morality.

    I was mostly trying to illustrate a distinction thatís recognized in moral philosophy, but maybe charity is a bad example. Suppose you catch a baseball at a game, but instead of keeping it, you decide to give it to the special needs child near you in a wheelchair. In that case, it was certainly a good thing to do, but you werenít obliged by any compelling, overriding reasons to do so Ė fact is, you could have kept the ball, and thereís no good reason to say that you ought not have done so. Sure, your feelings of personal obligation drove you to do it, but that feeling of obligation is arguably different than the obligation you have to, say, interfere with a rape in-progress.

    Itís certainly a subtle distinction, and itís not a straightforward one to define. But I think there IS a distinction, and itís worth talking about (as Iím sure you agree).

    ---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see how secular morality can be anything but subjective. I mean one can rationally observe what causes harm or theorize that morality is objectively derived from evolution, the "should and should not" still comes from the human mind.
    Yes, this is exactly the problem right here. This is also why it’s irrational to take a hard stance on the is/ought fallacy (I know you didn’t take such a stance; FYI). Hume didn’t say that facts are irrelevant to moral theory, after all.

    Whether you’re an objectivist or a subjectivist, you’re still simply picking a spot that you think is the right one to give you what you need to call it “moral”. With theistic objectivists, it tends to be divine command. With subjectivists, it tends to be reasons like the harm principle, principles of charity, principles of ethics, etc. But in any case, everyone picks a place that satisfies them. Objectivists pick a theoretical place where there lies an immutable, perfect, metaphysical standard that they can point to and say “There’s moral objectivity.” Subjectivists point to tangible reasons, that are useful for rational discussion, but that are nonetheless extremely vulnerable to varying opinion.

    Eventually everyone just has to pick a spot and find a way to be satisfied with it.

  18. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    I still think there's room for clarification with regards to objective vs subjective morality. We've gotten so accustomed to throwing around the terms that I'm afraid there may be unjustified baggage attached to them.

    For example, within our secular moral system in which we establish the goals, we are able to evaluate actions according to whether they align with those goals. Those evaluations are based on observed facts of the actions and the facts of whether they align with those goals. Therefore, we are entirely justified in saying that at action is objectively wrong, since that evaluation itself is based on facts and not anyone's opinion. The fact that raping someone is wrong because it causes harm to them and therefore is against the goal of minimizing unnecessary harm is an objective fact.

    Does that make the moral system itself objective just because it has the ability to make objective evaluations? Probably not, but that's more because I don't think labelling the a whole moral system as objective or subjective has any value. Really the only thing we can justify calling truly objective is reality itself, and even there we have potential issues. When talking about a moral system, we're inherently talking about a bunch of different things and processes which are going on within that system, and it may be entirely wrong to try and label them all under a single umbrella of "objective" or "subjective".

    Are we sure that throwing around phrases like "this is objectively good", and "that is an objective moral duty", serves any purpose in helping us determine what kind of moral system we should employ?

  19. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  20. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    MT,

    Again, thanks for your comments.

    Let me keep this short and sweet.

    In your opinion, are there reasons not to rape someone, apart from God saying “Do not rape”?

    If so, what are some of those reasons?

    (If you have reasons, please be as concise as you can with your reasons; “because it harms the victim; “because it violates their bodies”, etc.)
    Because I want to, or not.
    I could elaborate on the overal equaltiy of all the methods of arriving at any personal "want to", but I think you get it.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Let's re-cap:
    MT: "It is always wrong to rape and torture children for fun. So everyone has a moral duty not to do such things. This is an objective moral fact. Meaning, it is not referring to the state of my brain, it is referring to external reality that applies to everyone like it or not."
    2. FB: "How did you determine that not raping and torturing children for fun is an objective moral fact?"
    3. MT: "I am simply answered your question and giving an example of what those facts look like."

    So for the bold portion of #2 you actually should have written "This would be an objective moral fact, if any actually do exist." Please confirm.
    Well, you are missing a few parts that occured before.
    Like
    1-"if moral obligations exist or not, objective truths about morality exist". (Moral facts)
    2- if moral duties don't exist (and I would add moral values as Dio pointed out), then the objective fact would be that all actions are inherently amoral.
    3- FB - What would a objective moral obligation look like.
    4- MT: "It is always wrong to rape and torture children for fun. So everyone has a moral duty not to do such things. This is an objective moral fact. Meaning, it is not referring to the state of my brain, it is referring to external reality that applies to everyone like it or not."
    5. FB: "How did you determine that not raping and torturing children for fun is an objective moral fact?"
    6. MT: "I am simply answered your question and giving an example of what those facts look like."

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So for the bold portion of #2 you actually should have written "This would be an objective moral fact, if any actually do exist." Please confirm.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So which is it? Are you arguing that it's a fact that either objective moral laws exist or the don't, or are you arguing that there exist certain moral laws (like "it's wrong to rape and murder for fun") which are facts about objective morality? I had prepared a longer response, but after reading your posts to Dio, it's clear that while you actually believe that our morality ultimately comes from a deity, you don't think you have to support that belief.
    The former. I don't think I have to support the existance of God or the source of objective moral laws, or the existance of any specific moral obligation because while it is a position I hold, here I am forwarding that objective facts about morality exist and regardless of what they are the contradict the relativist position.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You keep hinting at the consequences of there not actually being any objective morality handed down to us by a deity and us being left to our own devices. However, the only real consequence you've offered is that if objective morality from a deity doesn't exist, then we don't have objective morality, since you appear to be defining objective morality as necessarily coming from a deity.
    Not quite. First I didn't say "from a diety" ever in this thread. The ultimate or possible source is not necissary. (don't have to explain the explination).
    Second, I am saying that the consequicence of the nonexistance of objective moral laws, is that we are still left with objecitive moral truths that contradict subjective morality in all it's forms.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    As Dio explained, we can't even get an "ought" from a deity, so how is claiming that the "ought" comes from a deity any better than us recognizing that we have to decide by ourselves what "oughts" we ought to have? Again, that is unless you're defining the "ought" literally as "commanded by a deity".
    See above, this is outside my argument line. IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    There very well may not be any objective morals which we could obtain from some nebulous place outside our reality, we just don't know. The bottom line, however, is that we are stuck together on this planet, and we're also stuck dealing with reality on reality's terms. The question we must then answer is "How do we go about finding the best way to co-exist on this planet?"
    I vote for the system where everyone is obligated to give me money.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So far, your response seems to be nothing more than "Well, if we don't get our morals from an objective source which is a deity, then there's nothing which objectively obligates us to do anything".
    Yes, the objecitve moral truth that conflicts with the subjective statements in all forms.
    Yea.

    If you want to say the best thing we can do is pretend together to be shinny happy people, then fine. But it s still pretend, and is in conflict with reality.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. #56
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because I want to, or not.
    I could elaborate on the overal equaltiy of all the methods of arriving at any personal "want to", but I think you get it.
    Actually, no I don't. Not at all. You've only given a statement about your attitude towards rape; this is not the same as reasons for anyone to not rape. Your answer is akin to "Why don't you eat carrots?", "Because I don't want to eat carrots." - that's a non-answer to the "why" question. Do they taste funny? Do they burn? Are you allergic? What reasons are present that make it so that you don't want to eat carrots? That's what I'm asking for.

    Do you think there are good reasons for people to not go around raping each other, apart from God saying "Do not rape"?

  22. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Actually, no I don't. Not at all. You've only given a statement about your attitude towards rape; this is not the same as reasons for anyone to not rape. That's what I'm asking for.

    Do you think there are good reasons for people to not go around raping each other, apart from God saying "Do not rape"?
    To back up a bit. Yes there are reasons, but there are also reasons TOO rape. (Can you name any?)
    One of those major reasons is personal want too.
    "want to" is a reason, it is an emotional reason, but it is a reason none the less.
    Desire is a major driving force in nature? (IE want to) So I stand by it.

    But if you don't accept that, then I would say this.
    Laziness and personal risk, the latter being heavily dependent on society.

    Some reasons for rape would be
    Proactive attitude to spreading genetics
    Personal enjoyment and excitement
    Ability to get away with it, or risk assessment.

    All of which are heavily dependent on attitudes.

    --
    I am curious as to what sort of argument can be made that any given reason is superior to the another, especially if the goal can change.
    So the first list would be a really bad one if raping as many people as possible is the goal and not a least harm goal.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #58
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To back up a bit. Yes there are reasons, but there are also reasons TOO rape. (Can you name any?)
    Let me stop you right there, because it seems like you're trying very hard to not give a philosophically thoughtful answer to the question. That is, it seems very much like you're trying to answer in such a way that doesn't compromise your debate position on it. I'm not debating, here. We're just talking.

    Do you think there are any compelling, overriding reasons why a person - ANY person - should not rape, apart from God having said "Do not rape"?

    Also, just to put it out there, Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig DO think that there are compelling, overriding reasons why people should not rape, apart from God having said "Do not rape". They hold that these reasons are necessary to adopt moral behavior, but they do not hold that they are sufficient to adopt moral behavior.

  24. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Let me stop you right there, because it seems like you're trying very hard to not give a philosophically thoughtful answer to the question. That is, it seems very much like you're trying to answer in such a way that doesn't compromise your debate position on it. I'm not debating, here. We're just talking.

    Do you think there are any compelling, overriding reasons why a person - ANY person - should not rape, apart from God having said "Do not rape"?

    Also, just to put it out there, Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig DO think that there are compelling, overriding reasons why people should not rape, apart from God having said "Do not rape". They hold that these reasons are necessary to adopt moral behavior, but they do not hold that they are sufficient to adopt moral behavior.
    Fair enough. I inherently see the question from a "god exists" perspective. I am not trying to avoid any particular conclusion I just don't see a path. I see a vast sea of contradictory, but not mutually invalidating positions.

    Secondly I see it through the position I have forwarded here.

    From that the "are their reasons" point looses a lot of meaning for me because I am limited to the second point, so yes I am trying hard to stay consistent with it. (as opposed to trying to concede the subjectivist claim that objective moral duties do not exist)
    So I think. People do all kinds of things and they all have reasons. In my opinion without God, "reasons" simply don't matter, because opposing ones can equally validly be held.
    Could I form an argument for why a person would benefit from not raping? Why society would benefit Society at large? Sure, but that argument would not invalidate any other position even one that is based on pure emotion, or primal instinct or drives. (Which was my thoughtful philosophical point in my last post.) I also believe that I could come up with an equally valid mirror argument.

    So, in the spirit of just talking, what am I missing?
    Does one good reason invalidate another? Such that the reason of wanting to, is invalidated by the reason of X,Y,Z?
    Must I assume the goal of least harm in order to reach "the" correct answer (if you are looking for one?)

    Finally as to WLC, I don't think I am forwarding the same position he would argue from, and I haven't heard it.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; April 7th, 2017 at 05:28 PM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  25. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  26. #60
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Meh, nevermind, bro. I think I've said all I'm willing to say at this point. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

  27. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •