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 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 263
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    [QUOTE=mican333;555018]First off, if there is an intelligent creator that doesn't determine morality (although God is typically defined this way a "creator" does not need to fit that definition), then it is not a source of objective morality.

    But if the entity is the arbiter of morality, then it is objective morality regardless of the nature of that being. If this being has made it so that what we typically think is good is actually evil, then that is the objective morality and we are just wrong about what is good and bad, but what is good and bad is objectively determined in the same fashion that observable facts are objectively true.

    So even if an evil God created objective morality, it is still objective morality and therefore objective morality exists.



    That is without a doubt the most depressing picture of god anyone has ever painted for me....

    However, if all one need do is create a life and a place for them to live, the universe/whatever (no small set of criteria to be sure) and you become the "objective source of morals" (or anything else I suppose). And anything you think is unquestionable (since you are the objective source). So I suppose you could say murder is ok. Then another time, say, no it is not ok. You would still be the objective source of morals. So both would be correct (when you said it).

    How is that not the definition of "subjective morals"?

  2. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It may be an objective fact that you believe it wrong; it is a weakness that you think you determine wrong. That is a flaw of subjectivism. It begs the question of why your belief is morally superior to another relative belief just because you can think it. It just pulls right and wrong out of mid-air as its foundation. "I like it, therefore, it is right!" "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong!" The problem comes when two subjective OPINIONS disagree. It is the thing wars are fought over.
    And people don't fight over objective beliefs? Given that religious beliefs are objective (as in everyone believes that their beliefs ARE right and it's not a matter of opinion), religious wars are matters when two sides battle of objective beliefs. The Holy wars of the past were fought over objective beliefs. Religious-based terrorists, like ISIS, are fighting because of objective ideals.

    So maybe if no one ever fought over objective moralities, you'd have a point. But that's not the case.

  3. #103
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But if the entity is the arbiter of morality, then it is objective morality regardless of the nature of that being. If this being has made it so that what we typically think is good is actually evil, then that is the objective morality and we are just wrong about what is good and bad, but what is good and bad is objectively determined in the same fashion that observable facts are objectively true.

    So even if an evil God created objective morality, it is still objective morality and therefore objective morality exists.

    That is without a doubt the most depressing picture of god anyone has ever painted for me....
    Well, you are the one who painted THAT picture. If you go by what people who believe in objective morality say, the arbiter is a good being and what we generally think is moral (like don't kill) reflects what God thinks. The scenario of an evil God is just a hypothetical that you created for this debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    However, if all one need do is create a life and a place for them to live, the universe/whatever (no small set of criteria to be sure) and you become the "objective source of morals" (or anything else I suppose). And anything you think is unquestionable (since you are the objective source). So I suppose you could say murder is ok. Then another time, say, no it is not ok. You would still be the objective source of morals. So both would be correct (when you said it).

    How is that not the definition of "subjective morals"?
    Because subjective morality is human created. If an external being has determine what is and is not moral for humans, then morality is objective regardless of what this being is or what views the being has.

  4. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    [QUOTE=mican333;555070]Well, you are the one who painted THAT picture. If you go by what people who believe in objective morality say, the arbiter is a good being and what we generally think is moral (like don't kill) reflects what God thinks. The scenario of an evil God is just a hypothetical that you created for this debate.

    Fair enough.
    I realize lots of people "assume" that a "creator of everything" would be "a good being and moral" but why would it be necessarily so? You are the one telling me that an evil creator is still "objectively moral".
    (no one has ever said that part to me, which is the "picture" I was referring to. In other words, most people tell me a "bad creator" isn't objectively moral.)
    A being could create life just to torture it couldn't "they" (assuming they had the resources and will to do so)?

    Human's keep trying to "create a new life form". Could human's be the arbiter of morals to this new life form if it progressed mentally to a "moral consciousness" or moral agent type status?

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because subjective morality is human created. If an external being has determine what is and is not moral for humans, then morality is objective regardless of what this being is or what views the being has.

    Could you explain why this is so? How did humans "create subjective morals"? How did "an external being" acquire this authority to be the "objective source"?
    Though I realize it's also popular to think "whatever" might have created our universe is the "ultimate" creator (uncaused cause), what is reason there can not be more "uncaused causes"? If there was more than one god (uncaused cause), would there be multiple "objective moralities"?

    I still don't see why god "could" change his mind willy nilly what is moral and it is still all "objectively moral" even if it conflicts day to day???
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 11th, 2017 at 05:51 PM.

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I realize lots of people "assume" that a "creator of everything" would be "a good being and moral" but why would it be necessarily so? You are the one telling me that an evil creator is still "objectively moral".
    The creator doesn't have to be good but one would think that assuming our lives have reason, what people generally consider good and evil will align with what our creator thinks is good and evil.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Human's keep trying to "create a new life form". Could human's be the arbiter of morals to this new life form if it progressed mentally to a "moral consciousness" or moral agent type status?
    A realistic scenario would be artificial intelligence and we would be the arbiters if we created a mind that we could program.

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Could you explain why this is so?
    It's just the definitions of the words.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How did humans "create subjective morals"?
    By having morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How did "an external being" acquire this authority to be the "objective source"?
    By creating beings who have moral views.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Though I realize it's also popular to think "whatever" might have created our universe is the "ultimate" creator (uncaused cause), what is reason there can not be more "uncaused causes"? If there was more than one god (uncaused cause), would there be multiple "objective moralities"?
    Since ONE God created the universe, multiple Gods would create multiple universes. So in that scenario, different universes would have different objective morals. So, yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I still don't see why god "could" change his mind willy nilly what is moral and it is still all "objectively moral" even if it conflicts day to day???
    That's omnipotence for you. You can do anything!

  6. #106
    Registered User

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And people don't fight over objective beliefs? Given that religious beliefs are objective (as in everyone believes that their beliefs ARE right and it's not a matter of opinion), religious wars are matters when two sides battle of objective beliefs. The Holy wars of the past were fought over objective beliefs. Religious-based terrorists, like ISIS, are fighting because of objective ideals.

    So maybe if no one ever fought over objective moralities, you'd have a point. But that's not the case.
    First, I only support one religious view as being true to what is. Other religious view, I contend, are man-made attempts to fashion God in their image and likeness instead of the other way around.

    Second, obviously, someone is wrong. For an objective belief you have to have it fixed on the revelation of an necessary objective being. If you have the wrong being you have the wrong morality. If you misinterpret His revelation you have the wrong morality. If you do not have a necessary being anything is possible. If anything is possible you can't make sense of anything. It loses its identity; it has none.

    Let's use a Law of Identity example. A = A. (A dog is a dog)

    Picture two boxes, A + B. A is the smaller box. It fits within the bigger box. A is not B. B is the greater box that Box A box fits inside. B is everything else besides Box A. Put another way, B is everything that disagrees with A.

    A does not equal B.

    Whatever identity you put to A cannot also equal B. Now apply this same box illustration to something that is in the universe by giving A an identity in the universe. Box B is everything else in the universe. Now give an identity to A. A = Right. Everything that is not Right is B.

    The problem with your worldview is that you don't seem to be able to give an identity to A. It doesn't fit in the A box. That box is empty. There is no logic to its value since it can be opposite or anything depending on who holds the value. It changes according to differing worldviews. You can't give A exact identity. Murder could be regarded as right to some individuals, cultures, or groups, depending on preference (that is all you have - subjective preference). So murder does not fit into box A. It does not have specific value and can be right or wrong. You can't give it a fixed identity. Therefore, depending on who you are murder can be considered right, raping women for fun could be considered right or wrong, so can any other value you give to A. Talk about confused and inconsistent.

    A dog can be a cat. Right can be wrong. Murder can be both right and wrong. Raping or killing for pleasure and fun could be right or wrong depending on who holds what view. Subjective, right?

    But as soon as someone cuts in line before you there is definite wrong there. When someone steals your wallet it is definitely wrong. When someone murders a member of your family it is definitely wrong. When someone lies to you it is definitely wrong.

    So, if you want to live in the land of make believe where anything is possible then you are in that land. Welcome to the Land of Nod, or Never-Neverland! If you want to make sense of anything then you need an objective value and an objective source. Truth is true. So God becomes that necessary source in making sense of values of right and wrong. Find out who God is becomes imperative to truth (That is a different discussion that I am willing to have with you; a discussion for another time). If you believe there is no God and you suspect you are right (whatever "right" means) then might most definitely makes right. Whoever can impose their view on others wins! That becomes "right" and that is what we witness so many times in history, including in our own time with so many dictators and world leaders.

    Peter

  7. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The creator doesn't have to be good but one would think that assuming our lives have reason, what people generally consider good and evil will align with what our creator thinks is good and evil.




    A realistic scenario would be artificial intelligence and we would be the arbiters if we created a mind that we could program.

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]





    It's just the definitions of the words.




    By having morals.



    By creating beings who have moral views.




    Since ONE God created the universe, multiple Gods would create multiple universes. So in that scenario, different universes would have different objective morals. So, yes.




    That's omnipotence for you. You can do anything!



    I get the distinct feeling you are pulling on my bootstraps with me still in my boots. Or in other words, if you are going to blow smoke up my a$$, please don't use an air compressor


    Our lives have "reason" so god will "align" with your/"our" (or the average persons) subjective values? What "reason" do human lives have?
    Says who "one god created this universe?
    Humans may create artificial intelligence , or maybe a whole new life form. How does that make us objective moral givers if we get our objective morals from god (somewhere else)?
    "It's the definition of the words". Where are you getting these definitions from.
    A human creates morals by having them?
    Multiple objective moral systems can coexist?

    All you have told me here is what Mican's world view is with 0 support that it matches anyone's reality. I don't mean to be insulting, but was your last post serious or are you trying to tell me I just not smart to understand the complexity of your thoughts?

  8. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I get the distinct feeling you are pulling on my bootstraps with me still in my boots. Or in other words, if you are going to blow smoke up my a$$, please don't use an air compressor
    I am not. I know many of my answers are pretty simple, but they are correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Our lives have "reason" so god will "align" with your/"our" (or the average persons) subjective values? What "reason" do human lives have?
    I am not saying that our lives do have reason, but if one believes that they do and they also believe that morality is objective, then it's reasonable for them to believe that God's morality is not much different than our own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Says who "one god created this universe?
    It's pretty much in the definition of God (from a monotheistic perspective).


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Humans may create artificial intelligence , or maybe a whole new life form. How does that make us objective moral givers if we get our objective morals from god (somewhere else)?
    It wouldn't. The IA beings might consider the morality we impart to them to be objective but from our perspective, it would still be subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    "It's the definition of the words". Where are you getting these definitions from.
    The dictionary



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A human creates morals by having them?
    From the subjective perspective, yes. In other words, humans have thoughts and some of these thoughts are related to morality (should and should not). From a subjective perspective, humans having these kinds of thoughts create morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Multiple objective moral systems can coexist?
    Not in the same universe. Look at it this way. With objective morality, morality becomes fact. Two contradictory facts cannot exist in this universe. It's a fact that the Earth is round and therefore the earth cannot be flat and round at the same time. Likewise if it's a FACT that murder is morally wrong, then it can't be morally right at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    All you have told me here is what Mican's world view is with 0 support that it matches anyone's reality.
    Actually, I haven't done that. You are asking questions regarding objective morality and I'm answering them in order to explain what objective morality is and what I'm describing is pretty much how Western monotheists view morality (although this is not necessarily the only view of objective morality but it is a valid example of it). And to be clear, I am NOT arguing that morality is indeed objective. I approach these issues from the agnostic perspective. But again, you are asking questions and I'm answering them.

    Really, if you have an argument against objective morality you need to make an argument stating that it doesn't exist and why that is so. Asking me questions does not accomplish that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't mean to be insulting, but was your last post serious or are you trying to tell me I just not smart to understand the complexity of your thoughts?
    I'm not really telling you my thoughts. I'm explaining what objective morality is and I see no problem with given simple, straightforward answers.
    Last edited by mican333; July 12th, 2017 at 07:07 AM.

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    [QUOTE=mican333;555078]I am not. I know many of my answers are pretty simple, but they are correct.


    ok, I will take you at your word. You aren't pulling my leg, but yes your answers were simple (which is fine and preferred), but don't seem to pass the mildest purview.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

    So, back to the Op and "which is superior" objective or subjective morality, by your own testimony in this thread, a god that was the objective moral source isn't necessarily superior to a subjective source because you could have the exact same set of morals. You posited that a god could be evil or change his mind daily and still be "objectively moral" in all his actions. I don't see much difference in the outcome between that and a subjective system (except that you want to make the "definition of god" to take away that objection which seems pretty limp noodle...).

    So I don't see either one as necessarily "superior".

  10. #110
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    ok, I will take you at your word. You aren't pulling my leg, but yes your answers were simple (which is fine and preferred), but don't seem to pass the mildest purview.
    If they are accurate, then they should pass all purview. And I think for the most part, they are obviously accurate (as in it would kind of hard to argue that they are incorrect).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So, back to the Op and "which is superior" objective or subjective morality, by your own testimony in this thread, a god that was the objective moral source isn't necessarily superior to a subjective source because you could have the exact same set of morals.
    But that is not my basis for claiming that either is superior. My claim is based on accuracy. IF morality is objective, then it is superior to subjective morality because it's real. In other words you are comparing the accurate claim that morality comes from an external source to the inaccurate claim that morality comes from humans. And if morality is subjective, then you are comparing the accurate claim that morality comes from humans to the inaccurate claim that morality comes from an external source. Whichever scenario it is, the accurate claim is superior to the inaccurate one because truth is superior to falseness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You posited that a god could be evil or change his mind daily and still be "objectively moral" in all his actions. I don't see much difference in the outcome between that and a subjective system (except that you want to make the "definition of god" to take away that objection which seems pretty limp noodle...).

    As i said in my last post, with objective morality, morality becomes fact. So if a God did change morality, then it's the same as God changing the facts of the universe. To use the shape of the Earth analogy, it would be like God changing the Earth from round to flat.

    So let's say that God suddenly made the Earth flat. If that happened, which statement is superior? The objective statement "The Earth is flat" or the subjective statement "It's just an opinion that the Earth has a particular shape"? Obviously the first one. And likewise if there IS a God and that God decided that Evil is morally correct, then the statement that it's an objective fact that evil is morally correct is superior to the statement that good and evil are just human opinions.

  11. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As i said in my last post, with objective morality, morality becomes fact. So if a God did change morality, then it's the same as God changing the facts of the universe. To use the shape of the Earth analogy, it would be like God changing the Earth from round to flat.
    So let's say that God suddenly made the Earth flat. If that happened, which statement is superior? The objective statement "The Earth is flat" or the subjective statement "It's just an opinion that the Earth has a particular shape"? Obviously the first one. And likewise if there IS a God and that God decided that Evil is morally correct, then the statement that it's an objective fact that evil is morally correct is superior to the statement that good and evil are just human opinions.
    Even if objective morality existed as you describe (objectively correct morals which are forwarded by an external moral source), there still remains the problem of our subjective access to it, experience of it, and implementation of it. So it would ultimately (where the moral rubber meets the road of human civilization) still be subjective morality.

  12. #112
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Even if objective morality existed as you describe (objectively correct morals which are forwarded by an external moral source), there still remains the problem of our subjective access to it, experience of it, and implementation of it. So it would ultimately (where the moral rubber meets the road of human civilization) still be subjective morality.
    I don't disagree. But in that situation, subjective morality is inferior to objective morality.

    It would be like people saying that whether the earth is round is a matter of opinion (subjective) compared to those who say that it's a fact that the Earth is round (objective). Given that the latter is clearly correct, it is a superior statement.

  13. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't disagree. But in that situation, subjective morality is inferior to objective morality.
    Based on the criteria of that which is correct is superior, sure. But such criteria doesn't have any value if we have no way of confirming which is correct or implementing the one which is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It would be like people saying that whether the earth is round is a matter of opinion compared to those who say that it's a fact that the Earth is round.
    No, it would be like people saying that something which we have no way of confirming objectively is a matter of opinion compared to those who say it is a fact. Both claims have little value as long as we have no way of confirming.

  14. #114
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Based on the criteria of that which is correct is superior, sure. But such criteria doesn't have any value if we have no way of confirming which is correct or implementing the one which is correct.
    Right "if". First off, it has not been proven that no one can, or has, confirmed that certain moral views are objectively correct. And even if that is the case, it doesn't mean that we won't be able to in the future. Claims that can't be proven as correct today but will be proven correct in the future are superior to claims that will always be incorrect at any time. And theoretically, if mankind endures long enough and keeps learning, we should eventually learn the truth about everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, it would be like people saying that something which we have no way of confirming objectively is a matter of opinion compared to those who say it is a fact. Both claims have little value as long as we have no way of confirming.
    Who's "we" exactly?

    I mean if, hypothetically, God whispered in my ear and therefore I KNOW that certain positions are objectively morally correct, then there's value in that. Of course, I can't convince you that this is true so "we" (BOTH you and I) can't know for sure, but the fact that I know what is indeed true makes my belief more valuable than those who believe in falsehoods or just don't know the truth.

  15. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, it has not been proven that no one can, or has, confirmed that certain moral views are objectively correct. And even if that is the case, it doesn't mean that we won't be able to in the future. Claims that can't be proven as correct today but will be proven correct in the future are superior to claims that will always be incorrect at any time. And theoretically, if mankind endures long enough and keeps learning, we should eventually learn the truth about everything.
    Until that theoretical future, any claims regarding objective morality as you have described it have absolutely no value whatsoever.
    Also, it's not "claims that can't be proven as correct today but will be proven correct in the future", it's "claims that can't be proven as correct today but could be proven correct in the future", as you have not supported that they will be proven correct in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Who's "we" exactly?
    The same "we" as in "we should eventually learn the truth about everything". Who did you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean if, hypothetically, God whispered in my ear and therefore I KNOW that certain positions are objectively morally correct, then there's value in that.
    No there isn't. To repeat: there still remains the problem of our subjective access to it, experience of it, and implementation of it. So it's not "if God whispered in my ear", it's "if I experienced someone whispering in my ear and I claimed it was God". That God whispered in your ear is a claim which must be supported before it held any value in any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    the fact that I know what is indeed true makes my belief
    Do you see the problem here?

  16. #116
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Until that theoretical future, any claims regarding objective morality as you have described it have absolutely no value whatsoever.
    Also, it's not "claims that can't be proven as correct today but will be proven correct in the future", it's "claims that can't be proven as correct today but could be proven correct in the future", as you have not supported that they will be proven correct in the future.
    And I would say that a claim that could be proven to be correct is superior to a claim that will always be wrong in at all times.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No there isn't. To repeat: there still remains the problem of our subjective access to it, experience of it, and implementation of it. So it's not "if God whispered in my ear", it's "if I experienced someone whispering in my ear and I claimed it was God".
    You have to stick to my hypothetical in order to rebut it. My hypothetical is that I KNOW that morality is objective because God told me so. If you change the scenario to where I have reason to doubt, then you are not addressing my scenario.

    But if your point is that I can't convince anyone else that God whispered, I don't challenge that.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    That God whispered in your ear is a claim which must be supported before it held any value in any sense.
    Wrong. I agree that the claim must be supported before SOMEONE ELSE has any obligation to accept my claim as true, but I don't have to convince anyone else that what I believe is true in order for my belief to have value. Knowing the truth has innate value for the person who knows that truth, regardless of what others may think. People act on their own beliefs so the more accurate one's beliefs are, the more their behavior will correspond to reality.

    For example, if one believes the Earth is round when everyone else thinks it's flat, that person has an advantage over everyone else because he is operating with better information. He's the person who is more likely to explore the world because he's not afraid of falling off the edge.

    And even if two opposing conclusions really have no solid basis for their claims (God is not whispering in anyone's ears), the person who happens to be correct is still the person who is correct and therefore has a superior claim when compared to his counterpart. It's better to luck into the right answer than have the wrong answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Do you see the problem here?
    Not really. Beliefs can be based on what one knows. I both know and believe that the world is round. And if you disagree and your agreement is based on the definition of the two words, this appears to be nothing more than a semantic argument and doesn't really address any problem with my position.
    Last edited by mican333; July 13th, 2017 at 09:38 AM.

  17. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I would say that a claim that could be proven to be correct is superior to a claim that will always be wrong in at all times.
    This statement along with the superiority only have value when you demonstrate which is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You have to stick to my hypothetical in order to rebut it. My hypothetical is that I KNOW that morality is objective because God told me so. If you change the scenario to where I have reason to doubt, then you are not addressing my scenario.
    How do you know God told you so in that scenario?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Knowing the truth has innate value for the person who knows that truth, regardless of what others may think. People act on their own beliefs so the more accurate one's beliefs are, the more their behavior will correspond to reality.
    The more accurate one's beliefs are only has value once the accuracy is confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    For example, if one believes the Earth is round when everyone else thinks it's flat, that person has an advantage over everyone else because he is operating with better information.
    It depends on the information he's operating on. If he's operating on actual information which demonstrably proves that the earth is round, then fine. But according to your hypothetical, he's operating on the mere fact that he heard someone claiming they were God whispering it to him. So even though he turns out to be right, his belief/knowledge of that fact only has value once it is demonstrably confirmed that the earth is round, not before.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And even if two opposing conclusions really have no solid basis for their claims (God is not whispering in anyone's ears), the person who happens to be correct is still the person who is correct and therefore has a superior claim to his counterpart.
    Again, the superiority only exists when it is confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Not really. Beliefs can be based on what one knows. I both know and believe that the world is round.
    Let's look at this using an analogy:
    You're walking on the street and see a homeless man asking for change. Upon giving him $10 he jumps up, grabs your head, and buts his forehead up against yours. You immediately experience a trance-like dream-state, in which you feel as though you are floating in nothingness and can see the homeless man floating in front of you, now dressed in a pale robe instead of rags. You hear him speak, "Thank you. Your wealth of generosity has earned you wealth in finance, and you now have $1M in your bank account at (YOUR BANK)." All goes dark and you feel as though falling. You then find yourself standing in the same street, but can no longer see any sign of the homeless man.
    Now, are you in fact a millionaire? Is it a fact that you have $1M? Do you know that you have $1M?
    Does an answer of "Yes" to any of these questions have any value before you have been able to reach an ATM to check your balance?

    The point is, until you check your balance, you have no way of actually knowing whether what you just experienced was real, or whether it's true that you have $1M. So walking around thinking that you know you have $1M is pointless and delusional. Sure, after the fact, you can say you knew you had $1M, but even then, the value comes from the confirmation of it, not the mere fact that you believed something that was actually true.

  18. #118
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How do you know God told you so in that scenario?
    Because God made sure that I knew he told me. Since God is omnipotent he has the ability to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It depends on the information he's operating on. If he's operating on actual information which demonstrably proves that the earth is round, then fine. But according to your hypothetical, he's operating on the mere fact that he heard someone claiming they were God whispering it to him. So even though he turns out to be right, his belief/knowledge of that fact only has value once it is demonstrably confirmed that the earth is round, not before.
    My world hypothetical is not based on God whispering. And It doesn't matter how he learned. The fact that he knows gives him an advantage. He is the person who is more likely to explore the world because he knows it's round. The information helps him.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the superiority only exists when it is confirmed.
    No, the superiority exists when the information gives someone an advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Let's look at this using an analogy:
    You're walking on the street and see a homeless man asking for change. Upon giving him $10 he jumps up, grabs your head, and buts his forehead up against yours. You immediately experience a trance-like dream-state, in which you feel as though you are floating in nothingness and can see the homeless man floating in front of you, now dressed in a pale robe instead of rags. You hear him speak, "Thank you. Your wealth of generosity has earned you wealth in finance, and you now have $1M in your bank account at (YOUR BANK)." All goes dark and you feel as though falling. You then find yourself standing in the same street, but can no longer see any sign of the homeless man.
    Now, are you in fact a millionaire? Is it a fact that you have $1M? Do you know that you have $1M?
    Does an answer of "Yes" to any of these questions have any value before you have been able to reach an ATM to check your balance?

    The point is, until you check your balance, you have no way of actually knowing whether what you just experienced was real, or whether it's true that you have $1M. So walking around thinking that you know you have $1M is pointless and delusional. Sure, after the fact, you can say you knew you had $1M, but even then, the value comes from the confirmation of it, not the mere fact that you believed something that was actually true.
    I don't think this is an accurate analogy to one believing that something is objectively true. I believe it is objectively true that I have that money in my bank account, then I have justification to act on that knowledge without checking my account. And that knowledge gives me a relative advantage to someone who experiences the same thing but doesn't hold the same belief that I do.

    Let's extend the scenario and the same thing happens to you but you end up thinking that you might have the money but won't believe it until you check your account (you do have it but aren't sure and will need to check your ATM before you believe it).

    We are both walking down the street and a guy approaches us and offers to sell us some property that costs a half million but is guaranteed to triple in value within a year and the first one who agrees to buy it gets to buy it. In that scenario, I have the advantage over you. Since I KNOW I have the money, I can make the purchase immediately while you have to go an check your account before you feel safe making the purchase.

    So again, Knowing that certain information is accurate gives one an innate advantage over everyone else and therefore has value.
    Last edited by mican333; July 13th, 2017 at 10:07 AM.

  19. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because God made sure that I knew he told me. Since God is omnipotent he has the ability to do that.
    These are both claims which require support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My world hypothetical is not based on God whispering. And It doesn't matter how he learned. The fact that he knows gives him an advantage. He is the person who is more likely to explore the world because he knows it's round. The information helps him.
    How does he know?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the superiority exists when the information gives someone an advantage.
    The flat-earthers could also have some advantage by virtue of their belief. Also, until it is confirmed that the earth is round, the flat-earthers would be entirely justified in claiming that the advantage garnered by the round-earther is nothing more than luck, or caused by some other factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Wrong. If I KNOW that there's a million in my bank account, then the information has value.
    How do you know before checking your balance?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Let's extend the scenario and the same thing happens to you but you end up thinking that you might have the money but won't believe it until you check your account (you do have it but aren't sure and will need to check your ATM before you believe it).
    That would be the only rational response.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    We are both walking down the street and a guy approaches us and offers to sell us some property that costs a half million but is guaranteed to triple in value within a year and the first one who agrees to buy it gets to buy it. In that scenario, I have the advantage over you. Since I KNOW I have the money, I can make the purchase immediately while you have to go an check your account before you feel safe making the purchase.
    Again, how do you know before checking your balance?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So again, Knowing that certain information is accurate gives one an innate advantage over everyone else and therefore has value.
    How do you know the information is accurate?

  20. #120
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    These are both claims which require support.
    God by definition is omnipotent so that's supported. And since in the scenario, if God wanted me to know, I would know so that is supported as well.

    If you are asking me to support that either of these things did happen, I'm not saying they actually did. It's a hypothetical scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How does he know?
    I don't see the relevance of that question to whether he has an advantage because he knows.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The flat-earthers could also have some advantage by virtue of their belief.
    While it is possible for having bad information inadvertently lead to an advantage, generally speaking correct information is better so generally speaking, the round-earthers have the advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Also, until it is confirmed that the earth is round, the flat-earthers would be entirely justified in claiming that the advantage garnered by the round-earther is nothing more than luck, or caused by some other factor.
    Which in no way rebuts my point that the round earther has the actual advantage due to the fact that his information is better.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How do you know before checking your balance?
    Doesn't matter. If this is to be an analogy of someone believing in objective morality and objective morality being correct, then in this scenario I have to know that the money is in my account regardless of whether I confirm it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How do you know the information is accurate?
    That's irrelevant to whether my point is correct or not. If one has accurate information that others don't have, they have the advantage over them. How they go that information does not effect whether they have the advantage or not.

    If you want to concede this particular point, then we can move on to how realistic it is that people would receive information that would lead them to conclude that morality is objective.

 

 
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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
  •