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 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    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
    Meh, nevermind, bro. I think I've said all I'm willing to say at this point. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
    Sorry to disappoint, I appreciate your input and guidance in the thread it has been a breath of fresh air.
    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.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I was mostly trying to illustrate a distinction that’s 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 weren’t obliged by any compelling, overriding reasons to do so – fact is, you could have kept the ball, and there’s 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.
    I'd say it's just a matter of degrees. If my morals say that I should be kind to children and also prevent others from being victimized, I would be morally obliged to take both of your hypothetical actions and I certainly would prioritize preventing the rape over giving the kid a ball but again, it's just a matter of degrees - one of them is a much more serious situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    But that assumes that objective moralist are blind to "true" morality and have to figure it out for themselves in the same fashion that subjectivists do. That's not necessarily the case. I recognize your argument that it appears that objectivists do not necessarily lead more moral lives than subjectivists and don't challenge it. But one can argue that EVERYONE'S moral character is ingrained by their "creator" and the reason we generally do not want to commit horrendous acts is because of the morality God has instilled us with whether we recognize the source or not. If this is true and one realizes that it is true, then their moral actions are based on a recognized objective source and they are picking an accurate spot, not just picking one that works for them.

    ---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    Right, but as you said, it's your opinion. You are free to set the bar of "valid" reasons at ones that are based on God's morality but there's no particular reason that anyone else must adopt that bar.

    If someone else says that in their opinion the harm principle is the most valid basis for determining morality, I don't see why someone can't choose that basis for "valid" instead of the one you are forwarding.

    If we are in discussion mode, that's fine. You are telling us what you are thinking on the matter.

    And one problem that I think comes from your perspective as opposed to the "harm principle" is that the harm principle, if applied, will probably result in a more consistent benefit to people. What I mean is if we agree that morality comes from God, how do we determine what the correct moral actions are from that? Do we just open the bible and take everything literally? If not, how do we interpret it? Why not use a different religious text? How do we know the bible (or some other text) is an accurate indicator of God's moral edicts?

    Assuming we agree on which actions are moral and immoral, applying the harm principle (actually, the golden rule is very good also) should result in good moral actions instead of trying decipher God's moral wants from an objective source. Really, I'm more inclined to think that the harm principle and the golden rule are a better source of figuring out how God wants us to behave than what one can glean from religion.

  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #63
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right, but as you said, it's your opinion. You are free to set the bar of "valid" reasons at ones that are based on God's morality but there's no particular reason that anyone else must adopt that bar.
    Well, isn't that the exact problem I have been pointing out?
    The context of my answer is apart from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If someone else says that in their opinion the harm principle is the most valid basis for determining morality, I don't see why someone can't choose that basis for "valid" instead of the one you are forwarding.
    Indeed neither do I. Hence my objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we are in discussion mode, that's fine. You are telling us what you are thinking on the matter.

    And one problem that I think comes from your perspective as opposed to the "harm principle" is that the harm principle, if applied, will probably result in a more consistent benefit to people. What I mean is if we agree that morality comes from God, how do we determine what the correct moral actions are from that? Do we just open the bible and take everything literally? If not, how do we interpret it? Why not use a different religious text? How do we know the bible (or some other text) is an accurate indicator of God's moral edicts?
    I wouldn't argue from those things, I mean it can be.
    The point I would make here is at least the ballpark that the ball is being hit around is one where it can actually be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Assuming we agree on which actions are moral and immoral, applying the harm principle (actually, the golden rule is very good also) should result in good moral actions instead of trying decipher God's moral wants from an objective source. Really, I'm more inclined to think that the harm principle and the golden rule are a better source of figuring out how God wants us to behave than what one can glean from religion.
    My position (not forwarded here) is that those objective moral values are written by God onto our hearts.
    That just like God gave us physical eyes to see, he gave us a moral sense so that we can possibly know the objective moral laws.
    Hence why the standard of judgment biblicaly, is the standard by which you judge everyone else. There is no possibly more fair measure.

    So for me, the reason we agree is because we are both objectively right, not because we just so happen to share an opinion.
    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. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    1-"if moral obligations exist or not, objective truths about morality exist". (Moral facts)
    More confusing wording. And again, why is this even necessary? You really need to start expressing this one more clearly if you insist on using it. I suggest "Whether objective moral laws exist is a fact about morals."
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    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.
    Surely, you mean "if objective moral duties don't exist", and not simply any kind of moral duties? Any moral system can espouse moral duties without needing to appeal to an objective moral source. It again seems like you're defining "moral duties" as those derived from your objective source. You should take more care in the language you use if that isn't the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    6. MT: "I am simply answered your question and giving an example of what those facts look like."
    Ok, so you're not saying that the objective moral law of not raping for fun actually exists, but that if objective moral laws existed, this is an example of what one would be. However, the question still remains: How did you determine that to be an objective moral law (regardless, for now, of whether those actually do exist)?
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    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.
    But you've already granted that the "facts about morality" = "objective morals laws exist or they don't". I don't get how you can get from "it is a fact about morality that there may or may not be objective moral laws", to "therefore, the relativist position is contradicted". The fact about morality could very well be that objective moral laws don't exist, so how would that contradict relativism? Or are you using "facts about morality" to mean specific objective moral laws and are arguing that those do exist?
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    The ultimate or possible source is not necissary. (don't have to explain the explination).
    If your explanation has no explanatory power, then you do need to explain it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    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.
    Again, if objective moral laws don't exist, the "fact about morality" (what you're calling here the "objective moral truths") is that those objective moral laws don't exist. How does the fact that objective moral laws don't exist contradict subjective morality?
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    See above, this is outside my argument line. IMO.
    No, you have repeatedly claimed that if objective moral laws don't exist, then we have no way of getting to an "ought". So under what you're arguing, objective moral laws must exist, since that is the only way we can arrive at an "ought". But you have not actually supported how that "ought" is arrived at.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I vote for the system where everyone is obligated to give me money.
    I really don't get why you try so hard to avoid so many questions. It makes you seem disingenuous, and isn't helping the discussion at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Yes, the objecitve moral truth that conflicts with the subjective statements in all forms.
    Again, how does the fact of whether objective moral laws exist conflict with subjective statements? The fact could very well be that there are no objective moral laws, and all the while we're still operating under our current secular moral systems, and there would be no conflict. Or are you using "objective moral truth" to mean specific objective moral law?
    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    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.
    You need to stop committing the straw man fallacy whenever you represent moral systems which are not inline with whatever you believe about morality (what is that, btw?)

  6. #65
    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
    More confusing wording. And again, why is this even necessary? You really need to start expressing this one more clearly if you insist on using it. I suggest "Whether objective moral laws exist is a fact about morals."
    A bit nit picky here, but I'll try to adopt that language.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Surely, you mean "if objective moral duties don't exist", and not simply any kind of moral duties? Any moral system can espouse moral duties without needing to appeal to an objective moral source. It again seems like you're defining "moral duties" as those derived from your objective source. You should take more care in the language you use if that isn't the case.
    Yes correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Ok, so you're not saying that the objective moral law of not raping for fun actually exists, but that if objective moral laws existed, this is an example of what one would be. However, the question still remains: How did you determine that to be an objective moral law (regardless, for now, of whether those actually do exist)?
    Yes it remains, but it is not really relevant to my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    But you've already granted that the "facts about morality" = "objective morals laws exist or they don't". I don't get how you can get from "it is a fact about morality that there may or may not be objective moral laws", to "therefore, the relativist position is contradicted". The fact about morality could very well be that objective moral laws don't exist, so how would that contradict relativism? Or are you using "facts about morality" to mean specific objective moral laws and are arguing that those do exist?
    No objetive facts about morality is a referance to the inherent properties of things and actions.

    A thing can be inherently good, bad or neutral. If there are no objective moral laws, then all things are objectivly neutral.
    So any subjective projection onto actions is by definition in contradiction to the reality of that thing.

    I have used the idea of projecting(here meaning a mental projection, not like a movie projector) color onto a objectivly colorless object.
    And several other examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    If your explanation has no explanatory power, then you do need to explain it.
    I don't see how that objection has been show to have any relevance.
    Because I have not named a source, such as God, for any objective moral laws, which I have also not forwarded actually exist.
    I have focused my responses on the possible objective truths about the inherent moral nature of actions, and how that inherently contradicts the subjective position.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, if objective moral laws don't exist, the "fact about morality" (what you're calling here the "objective moral truths") is that those objective moral laws don't exist. How does the fact that objective moral laws don't exist contradict subjective morality?
    Because an objective moral law would say "such and such is bad" or "One ought to do X".
    If those objective laws don't actually exist, then it is an objective fact that all such statements are false, as they do not reflect reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, you have repeatedly claimed that if objective moral laws don't exist, then we have no way of getting to an "ought". So under what you're arguing, objective moral laws must exist, since that is the only way we can arrive at an "ought". But you have not actually supported how that "ought" is arrived at.
    Yea, because it is outside of my argument.

    I mean, suppose I was able to show that God must exist and is necissary. That may not show who he is, what he wants or if he even interacts with our
    Likewise, if I were to show that objective moral laws exist, that wouldn't necissarily show that we know what it is, or have access to them.

    Here, I am only arguing that we MUST seek objective moral laws, or else abandon any real concept of morality beyond common delusion.
    If objective moral laws don't exist, then we are stuck only with the delusion. So my objection to the relavitist is to not decive themselves into thinking they are espousing anything more than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I really don't get why you try so hard to avoid so many questions. It makes you seem disingenuous, and isn't helping the discussion at all.
    You said this
    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?"
    So the question isn't really directed at me, and I disagree with the validity of the premise. Co-existance is in no way some inherent goal that we must all persue.

    So I answered with an answer that should make you re-think your assumptions because the answer is just as valid as any other answer.
    Namely, if you are asking me what I think is the best way, you are going to find that some answer that in a selfish manner.
    How does your position invalidate that?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, how does the fact of whether objective moral laws exist conflict with subjective statements? The fact could very well be that there are no objective moral laws, and all the while we're still operating under our current secular moral systems, and there would be no conflict. Or are you using "objective moral truth" to mean specific objective moral law?
    Re- what I said about objective truths about morality. Consider that idea, and let me know if or how it is unclear.
    Then consider what you mean by "subjective" morality and exactly what it is (in an objective sense).

    For example, what is the speed limit of the universe? (the speed of light).. apparenlty. It is a real objective law.
    Now consider what the speed limit is down your street. You may have a sign that says "25mph". In what way is that a real limit?
    Because it is a gov sign? What about the ones where kids have added a zero? What is the difference between those two signs?

    This is what is objectivly going on. The real objective speed limit is the speed of light, and you have decided to pretend along with the gov that it is actually 25mph.
    You don't pretend with the kids that it is 250 for fear of threat of force. If you don't care about any of them, then you do whatever you like (IE your dire tells you).

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You need to stop committing the straw man fallacy whenever you represent moral systems which are not inline with whatever you believe about morality (what is that, btw?)
    I am not trying to represent what your argument is. I am trying to explain what your argument actually means and translate it into reality.
    Examine the above and tell me how I am wrong or mistaken about the factual observations.
    Is your set of morality really any different than the legal laws on the speed limit? Do you have any superior means than brute force and intimidation to make it "real" and "applicable" to others?


    This is where the Is/ought fallacy bites the subjectivist in the ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by WIKI
    The apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements, when combined with Hume's fork, renders "ought" statements of dubious validity. Hume's fork is the idea that all items of knowledge are either based on logic and definitions, or else on observation. If the is–ought problem holds, then "ought" statements do not seem to be known in either of these two ways, and it would seem that there can be no moral knowledge. Moral skepticism and non-cognitivism work with such conclusions.

    Critics of religion have argued that the is–ought distinction threatens the validity of secular ethics, by, in the critics' view, rendering secular ethical systems subjective and arbitrary.[4]

    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    (what is that, btw?)
    My position is that just as there are physical laws that govern the universe, there are moral laws that govern how we ought to act. We have access to these laws, just as we have access to reason and light(senses). We have been designed by our creator to perceive and conceive of these laws, and we are ,like him, moral creatures and agents.

    So, in order to even be a moral agent, acting in accordance to moral obligations. Those obligations must actually exist outside of the mind (also referred to as imagination), and we must have access to them.

    So if one would disagree that rape and murder for fun is morally wrong, they are broken and wrong, morally handicapped.

    (don't be tempted to divert to discussing that).
    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.

  7. #66
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    This is not really aimed at you mican, I'm just re-reading the thread and your the one to most directly address my argument.
    This is a recap of the state of the thread in relation to my arguments.

    To re-cap

    Quote Originally Posted by MT ORIGINAL ARGUMENT POST #2
    Argument A
    1) There are Objective Moral Truths.
    2) That moral truth is iether that there are objective moral laws, or that there are no objective moral laws.
    3) If there are no Objective moral laws, Then it is an objective truth that there is no moral right and wrong, no moral duty and all actions humans can take are objectively morally neutral.

    -Mican's rebutal
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I agree up until the very last thing you said. "Morally neutral" indicates that something falls in the middle of a scale as opposed to the scale not existing. So I disagree that without objective morality all human actions are objectively morally neutral. If there is no objective morality, then nothing is objective morally anything (good, bad, or neutral).
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN post 16
    So if an action has absolutely no being to consider whether what happened is right or wrong, then morality never entered into the equation. "Morally neutral" means that someone considered the morality of something and then determined that the action does not qualify as good or bad. But if no one considered the morality, then it's not morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral.
    -MT's response
    Quote Originally Posted by MT post 8
    Neutral just means that it has no value good or bad.
    Any object or actor that is not a moral actor is considered morally neutral.
    Such things by definition have no bearing on morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 14
    "Morality" is moral laws defining what is good and bad.
    To say that there is no morality is to say that there is no moral law, duty's or obligations.

    That statement by it's definition renders everything objectivly morally neutral.
    You can not define away objective reality because reality is objective. If things do not have inherent objecive value, there are ramifications to that, and the first is that they are neutral or zero valued.


    Question to opponent. Which point is the more reasonable/valid.

    Is it the case that in an objective sense, if moral laws don't exist, then things are neutral?
    or
    Is it that when we reject objective moral laws, we are also rejecting the possibility of moral neutrality?

    *note*
    Dio pointed out that this term is not morally neutral, but amoral. POST 17
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amoral



    -------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by MT ORIGINAL ARGUMENT POST #2
    Argument B
    The idea of "subjective morality" is not "morality" at all. Because it does not negate or over-ride the objective moral truth of all neutral. It is really an appeal to personal taste, likes and dislikes, and conflates ideas, mucking up the language.
    The supposing it were a fact fact that most people, or even all people personally disliking action X, that fact does not negate the objective truth that there is an objective neutral value on all actions.
    Here the clarification needs to be made that if no actual duty is created, then it isn't a moral system.
    This is where the definitions become vague as to if they are speaking of external reality, or brain states and imaginations.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgmentsb : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poemc : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nominationd : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligatione : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent
    Take for example the first "of or relating to the principles of right and wrong.."
    Are those principles objective or subjective? If subjective, then all systems are "moral" systems and all actions can objectively be said to be moral as long as it lines up with any brain state. (again reality matters)

    That isn't helpful and is simply a truism and can be rejected on a whim.

    If however it is referring to an objective moral value, that rape for fun has the inherent quality of "wrong" or "neutral" (depending on if objective moral laws exist). Then we can make some sense of things and we can know that the subjective position is objectively false.

    As long as some objective fact exists, the idea of subjective morality is false, and none of the systems are actually "moral" systems and they are miss named.

    So there is a problem in the definitions themselves as it fails to make a philosophically important distinction. That is the one between actuality and imagination.


    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    1.
    existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
    So by definition, subjective morality is about the brain and not morality itself.
    Hence, my claim that it isn't really morality at all.


    -Response
    The only one I can see is the observation of society and how it operates.
    is/ought fallacy



    ---------------------------------------
    Conclusion.

    I don't think I have seen an argument that has gotten around the is/ought fallacy. Going beyond observation of what is ,be it in the brain or in the world, and creating an obligation for another person in external reality. No argument has been made as to why your brain state obligates me to anything or vise versa. And no one has tackled the interaction of projecting values where none exist in nature.



    Parting notes, if any part of the above arguments is unclear then I will be happy to answer direct questions. I appreciate all your input and responses. And leave you all to the last word, except for direct questions.
    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.

  8. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Take for example the first "of or relating to the principles of right and wrong.."
    Are those principles objective or subjective? If subjective, then all systems are "moral" systems and all actions can objectively be said to be moral as long as it lines up with any brain state.
    I don't see how. If a system doesn't concern itself with right and wrong, then it's not a moral system regardless of whether it lines up with a brain state.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That isn't helpful and is simply a truism and can be rejected on a whim.

    If however it is referring to an objective moral value, that rape for fun has the inherent quality of "wrong" or "neutral" (depending on if objective moral laws exist). Then we can make some sense of things and we can know that the subjective position is objectively false.

    As long as some objective fact exists, the idea of subjective morality is false, and none of the systems are actually "moral" systems and they are miss named.
    I don't see how you get there. I agree that if objective morality is true, then objective morality is false. But that does not mean that if objective reality is true, then subjective morality is false. If objective morality does not exist, then the objective reality is that morality is subjective.

    If morality is created in the human mind, it's still a system that relates to right and wrong and therefore is, by definition, a moral system.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So by definition, subjective morality is about the brain and not morality itself.
    Hence, my claim that it isn't really morality at all.
    I don't see anything in the definition of "moral" that says that it's not about the brain or from the brain.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think I have seen an argument that has gotten around the is/ought fallacy. Going beyond observation of what is ,be it in the brain or in the world, and creating an obligation for another person in external reality. No argument has been made as to why your brain state obligates me to anything or vise versa. And no one has tackled the interaction of projecting values where none exist in nature.
    This sounds like a straw-man argument. I never argued that my brain state obligates you to do anything nor is that an intrinsic part of subjective morality. If morality is subjective, the only person my personal morality obligates to do something is ME. I never argued that it obligates someone else nor does it need to obligate someone else before it fits the definition of "morality". If I think something is wrong, then I obligate myself to not do it.

    Likewise I think your notion that my argument engages in the is/ought fallacy is based on a straw man. I'm not sure if that's the case because I'm not sure how you are reaching the conclusion of Is/Ought is being employed.

    What have I said or is the inescapable of my outcome that says that something is moral just because it already is.

    ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

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

    NOTE: In this section, I'm being more conversational and not really challenging points.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I wouldn't argue from those things, I mean it can be.
    The point I would make here is at least the ballpark that the ball is being hit around is one where it can actually be right.
    Right as in more likely to behave in a way that is consistent with objective morality (as in God's rules)? I don't think that a belief in objective morality really does make much of a difference. If an objective moralist and a subjective morality behave in the exact same way (do the same amount of good and bad), then the objective moralists belief in objective morality didn't really make a difference in him being right (as in obeying God's morals).

    There is no evidence that objective moralists (those who believe that their moral positions are objectively correct) behave better than subjective moralists. In fact, it seems that those who are most staunch in their beliefs have a tendency to not behave well (think of terrorists who so believe that they are obeying God's objective will, that killing others is morally good) but then that's an impression - I haven't crunched the numbers so I can prove anything. But regardless, it's feasible that obj and subj moralists have roughly the same amount of good and bad morality so again, I don't see how it can be said that a belief in objective morality makes one more likely to behave in a more moral fashion or even in a fashion that is more in line with objective morals if they exist.

    If obj morals exist, then the objective moralist is correct in the claim that morals are objective but that doesn't seem to mean that he will do a better job at defining what is morally correct and act accordingly.

    Now, this is a different issue than what we have been debating so I don't consider this to really help my point or hurt yours. But it's worth talking about in our "discussion" section.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My position (not forwarded here) is that those objective moral values are written by God onto our hearts.
    That just like God gave us physical eyes to see, he gave us a moral sense so that we can possibly know the objective moral laws.
    Hence why the standard of judgment biblicaly, is the standard by which you judge everyone else. There is no possibly more fair measure.

    So for me, the reason we agree is because we are both objectively right, not because we just so happen to share an opinion.
    Well, I half-agree with that. I do agree that if objective morality exists, then it is reflected in our innate morality (I believe that humans overall are morally good). And when I say "God" I mean in the more generic sense (as opposed to the God of the bible or any specific religion). But I don't see any innate advantage to using the bible as opposed to using one's own moral compass (which, again, was given by God even if the recipient thinks it's just in his mind). That's not to say that religion is worthless. I could agree that certain people do behave in a more moral way because of their adherence to a faith (but then that would go for any faith, save inherently destructive ones like certain cults, not just Christianity). And then there are people who behave destructively because of their faith - those people might have done better if they had remained secular. So again, in application, I'm not convinced that a belief in objective morality makes one behave better than a belief in subjective morality.

  9. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  10. #68
    Super Moderator

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If morality is created in the human mind, it's still a system that relates to right and wrong and therefore is, by definition, a moral system.
    Here the use of the word "created" is too vague.
    If what is "created" exists only in the mind, then it is imaginary. There is nothing "principle" about imaginations.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't see anything in the definition of "moral" that says that it's not about the brain or from the brain.
    You are looking at the wrong word. "subjective" is the word you should be seeing.
    That combined with "morality" literally means that you are not discussing morality, but the contents of the brain.

    As for morality itself, as it is concerned with how others should act, then it is not simply about the contents of ones brain. It's object must be external actions
    not simply brain states about those actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This sounds like a straw-man argument. I never argued that my brain state obligates you to do anything nor is that an intrinsic part of subjective morality. If morality is subjective, the only person my personal morality obligates to do something is ME. I never argued that it obligates someone else nor does it need to obligate someone else before it fits the definition of "morality". If I think something is wrong, then I obligate myself to not do it.
    I don't believe that for a second. The idea that you don't hold that another person shouldn't rape is impossible for me to accept about you. Is that what I am to believe your position on morality is?
    As it is, we had a long discussion where you were saying the island people shouldn't act a certain way, or that they were acting immorally. That certainly didn't sound like you were limiting your morality to only yourself.

    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    NOTE: In this section, I'm being more conversational and not really challenging points.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right as in more likely to behave in a way that is consistent with objective morality (as in God's rules)? I don't think that a belief in objective morality really does make much of a difference. If an objective moralist and a subjective morality behave in the exact same way (do the same amount of good and bad), then the objective moralists belief in objective morality didn't really make a difference in him being right (as in obeying God's morals).
    Well, this isn't really so much a point about how people act, as the claims that are made.
    A claim about external reality has the ability to be right.
    VS
    A claim about a persona brain state is not even about external reality so as to effect others.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If obj morals exist, then the objective moralist is correct in the claim that morals are objective but that doesn't seem to mean that he will do a better job at defining what is morally correct and act accordingly.

    Now, this is a different issue than what we have been debating so I don't consider this to really help my point or hurt yours. But it's worth talking about in our "discussion" section.
    I agree with this.

    I think this goes to if people really BELIEVE what they say. I think people do what they really believe.

    You may have heard the story of the motivational speaker who walked by the front row with a $100(or a large sum of money) and said to each person "This is yours!" Then he would ask each if they believed him, and they all said emphatically "yes!".
    He then got up to the podium and explained how people didn't believe him, because no one actually TOOK the money, and thus they were all shown to be lying to themselves.

    Jesus said the same thing when he said "they profess me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me".

    This is a human problem about beliefs, and it is also a main point against subjective morality, because no one can live their lives consistent with it. Not that they happen to not, but that it is not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I half-agree with that. I do agree that if objective morality exists, then it is reflected in our innate morality (I believe that humans overall are morally good). And when I say "God" I mean in the more generic sense (as opposed to the God of the bible or any specific religion). But I don't see any innate advantage to using the bible as opposed to using one's own moral compass (which, again, was given by God even if the recipient thinks it's just in his mind). That's not to say that religion is worthless. I could agree that certain people do behave in a more moral way because of their adherence to a faith (but then that would go for any faith, save inherently destructive ones like certain cults, not just Christianity). And then there are people who behave destructively because of their faith - those people might have done better if they had remained secular. So again, in application, I'm not convinced that a belief in objective morality makes one behave better than a belief in subjective morality.
    Well the advantage would be predicated on it actually being God's word. I would say that anytime God speaks we should listen, be it our own moral compass or prophet, or the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ.

    As to the goodness of man, I don't believe that. I believe in duality of man. Like the garden of eden, we have the knowledge of both good an evil in us, and choosing evil is natural to us.
    We are fallen and in need of a savior, and I believe everyone knows they are not perfect, they just don't want to connect that with needing to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. IMO (not directed at you personally) but it is a great lie to believe that we are essentially good, as it denies our fundamental need for a savior. "Good enough" comes up a lot.
    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.

  11. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Yes it remains, but it is not really relevant to my point.
    I don't see how it isn't. How am I supposed to simply accept your claim that it is an example of what an objective moral law would be if they existed? How did you determine it to be so? What if someone argues your claim that it would be an objective moral law and says, "No, that wouldn't be an objective moral law"? So far all you've done is make a personal moral pronouncement of the kind most people would make, except you left out the "I think -" (which you still haven't justified, btw), and claimed that this is what an objective moral law would be if they actually existed. That doesn't get us anywhere, because until you can support how you determined that it would be an objective moral law, you're just saying what you think and claiming without support that it is objective morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    No objetive facts about morality is a referance to the inherent properties of things and actions.
    MT, you already confirmed in numerous posts that what you're calling facts about morality is the fact of whether objective moral laws exist. They maybe exist, or they maybe don't exist, and this is a fact about morality.
    Now you're saying that the facts about morality are the inherent properties of things and actions, which seems to be alluding to them being objective moral laws, which you already confirmed are not facts about morality. So which is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    A thing can be inherently good, bad or neutral. If there are no objective moral laws, then all things are objectivly neutral. So any subjective projection onto actions is by definition in contradiction to the reality of that thing.
    If all things are neutral according to what you're defining as objective morality, that doesn't stop anyone from assigning values to those things according to another system (the only one which is demonstrated to exist, btw), and it is not a contradiction. This is exactly what we observe happening in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I have focused my responses on the possible objective truths about the inherent moral nature of actions, and how that inherently contradicts the subjective position.
    Again, if the objective truth is that objective moral laws don't exist, then the subjective position doesn't contradict anything. You can't contradict something which doesn't exist. Further, arguing that there's a contradiction with something which has not been demonstrated to exist has no value until is has been. Also, even if you could demonstrate that there did exist some nebulous source of objective morality, a subjective moral system would be in contradiction with it only within the objective moral system - within the subjective moral system, there would be no contradiction according to that system, since it would still be serving its purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    If those objective laws don't actually exist, then it is an objective fact that all such statements are false, as they do not reflect reality.
    No, in a system which doesn't depend on an objective source for its morality, one can still make moral evaluations according to the goals and values of that system which are based on facts and reality. You again seem to be trying to define the terms in such a way that only your position is correct. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case. We can still say "such and such is bad" and "one ought not do such and such" and be entirely justified and correct according to our moral system (again, the only one which has been demonstrated to exist).

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Yea, because it is outside of my argument.
    So you retract all your statements regarding what you call "the is/ought fallacy"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Here, I am only arguing that we MUST seek objective moral laws, or else abandon any real concept of morality beyond common delusion.
    Again, you seem to be trying to define the terms in your favour. Now you're calling them "real concepts of morality". Any moral system can have its own concepts of morality, and the fact that you think yours are the only real ones is irrelevant until you can support them. One could just as easily say "we MUST seek our own system of morals and determine how it would work best for us, or else abandon any possibility of having any successful morality beyond common delusion". The "common delusion" here being that there is a deity which has made some moral pronouncements which we ought to follow even though there is no "ought".

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    If objective moral laws don't exist, then we are stuck only with the delusion. So my objection to the relavitist is to not decive themselves into thinking they are espousing anything more than that.
    Again you are straw-manning the moral systems in use today by calling them "common delusion". This only demonstrates that you truly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to how morality works in the world right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    So the question isn't really directed at me, and I disagree with the validity of the premise. Co-existance is in no way some inherent goal that we must all persue.
    Fact: Co-existence is the situation in which we find ourselves. Fact: Successfully co-existing will ensure our survival. This is the basis for the goals of any moral system.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    So I answered with an answer that should make you re-think your assumptions because the answer is just as valid as any other answer.
    Not if it doesn't align with the goals of the moral system.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Namely, if you are asking me what I think is the best way, you are going to find that some answer that in a selfish manner. How does your position invalidate that?
    See above. Could you now answer the question truthfully, since I asked you what you thought?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Re- what I said about objective truths about morality. Consider that idea, and let me know if or how it is unclear.
    You've already contradicted yourself on how you're defining "objective truths about morality", so it's entirely unclear. Please define what you mean by "objective truths about morality". Are they the same as what you wrote above were "objective facts about morality"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    For example, what is the speed limit of the universe? (the speed of light).. apparenlty. It is a real objective law.
    Lol, I like your comparison, but for completely different reasons that what you may think. In any case, the only reason the speed of light is called a law is that it is (currently) considered impossible to travel faster under the laws of physics. We already have experiments which show that it may be possible to travel faster. Also, when used in the context of science, "laws" doesn't mean anything close to how we use laws with respect to traffic safety or morality. Your analogy is almost as bad as the whole "it's just a theory" mess. All it shows in the end is that we just don't know for sure, and therefore are left to deal with the whole morality question on our own, which is exactly what we see occurring.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I am not trying to represent what your argument is. I am trying to explain what your argument actually means and translate it into reality.
    You have not supported what you claim reality to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    This is where the Is/ought fallacy bites the subjectivist in the ass.
    As supported by Dio and ignored by you, the is/ought problem bites everyone in the ass. Until you provide a response instead of merely claiming that it's out of scope for your argument, continuing to use is/ought to criticize only one side is wholly dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    My position is that just as there are physical laws that govern the universe, there are moral laws that govern how we ought to act. We have access to these laws, just as we have access to reason and light(senses). We have been designed by our creator to perceive and conceive of these laws, and we are ,like him, moral creatures and agents.
    You have every right to believe that, but without support, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    So, in order to even be a moral agent, acting in accordance to moral obligations. Those obligations must actually exist outside of the mind (also referred to as imagination), and we must have access to them.
    According to secular moral systems (you know, those ones which actually exist and work), there is a completely different criteria determining who is a moral agent. Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on evaluations of right and wrong. You again seem to be defining the terms to suit your argument.

    Also, simply acting in accordance with a deity's moral pronouncements doesn't make you a moral agent at all, it just makes you a robot.

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

    Regarding the whole "morally neutral" question: "neutral" means something which doesn't have a value within the context of a system of values. Take a look at any example where neutral is used - there is always the outside context of a system where values are assigned. The word literally comes from the latin for "not either (of two)". Since we don't have the "either of two" with regard to objective moral laws, "neutral" is incoherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    Is it the case that in an objective sense, if moral laws don't exist, then things are neutral?
    or
    Is it that when we reject objective moral laws, we are also rejecting the possibility of moral neutrality?
    The 1st statement should be corrected to "if objective moral laws don't exist, then nothing can be evaluated according to that objective moral system."
    The 2nd statement doesn't even make sense, since nobody's rejecting objective moral laws. They just haven't been demonstrated to exist according to how you define them. So again we're left dealing with the tough issue of morality on our own.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT View Post
    I don't think I have seen an argument that has gotten around the is/ought fallacy.
    Yup, as Dio explained, is/ought is an issue for both sides.

  12. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here the use of the word "created" is too vague.
    If what is "created" exists only in the mind, then it is imaginary. There is nothing "principle" about imaginations.
    I'd say that's equivocation. I looked up the definition of "imaginary" and it pertains to the fanciful and nonexistent. Concepts that are created in the mind and not necessarily fanciful and nonexistent.

    Laws are principles that are created in the mind (think laws that are on the book against murder). So I don't really see a rebuttal so I will repeat that as long as a system concerns itself with right and wrong, it's a moral system - even if the system is generated from the human mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are looking at the wrong word. "subjective" is the word you should be seeing.
    That combined with "morality" literally means that you are not discussing morality, but the contents of the brain.
    There is nothing in the definition of mortality that precludes it from being content of the brain so this statement is incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As for morality itself, as it is concerned with how others should act, then it is not simply about the contents of ones brain. It's object must be external actions
    not simply brain states about those actions.
    Morality regards concerning oneself with right and wrong. If a brain concerns itself with right and wrong, then it is engaging in moral issues. Whether action follows such consideration makes no difference. Just thinking "that is wrong" is to make a moral judgment and therefore is moral.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't believe that for a second. The idea that you don't hold that another person shouldn't rape is impossible for me to accept about you. Is that what I am to believe your position on morality is?
    As it is, we had a long discussion where you were saying the island people shouldn't act a certain way, or that they were acting immorally. That certainly didn't sound like you were limiting your morality to only yourself.
    But the issue is obligation. Yes, I say that those men should not rape anyone. But I didn't say that my pronouncement on the matter creates an obligation for them to not do as I say they should not do. I made no argument about others obligations to heed my morality so you have no such argument to attack and therefore your attack was against an argument I didn't make and therefore was attacking a straw-man.

    You are the one who has introduced the issue of obligations and duty to this debate so you cannot assume that I hold a particular position regarding obligations, shoot it down, and then say you've defeated my argument. If you want to introduce duty and obligation into the debate, you have the burden of making an argument regarding those issues before I have any burden to address the issue.

    ----



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, this isn't really so much a point about how people act, as the claims that are made.
    A claim about external reality has the ability to be right.
    VS
    A claim about a persona brain state is not even about external reality so as to effect others.
    I can't really know what you mean without an example of two comparative claims. For example, are you referring to the same claim (like "murder is immoral") coming from both an objectivist and a subjectivist? Or are you referring to two separate claims coming from each. Since this portion is in discussion mode, I am more focused on figuring out what you mean exactly.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think this goes to if people really BELIEVE what they say. I think people do what they really believe.

    You may have heard the story of the motivational speaker who walked by the front row with a $100(or a large sum of money) and said to each person "This is yours!" Then he would ask each if they believed him, and they all said emphatically "yes!".
    He then got up to the podium and explained how people didn't believe him, because no one actually TOOK the money, and thus they were all shown to be lying to themselves.

    Jesus said the same thing when he said "they profess me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me".

    This is a human problem about beliefs, and it is also a main point against subjective morality, because no one can live their lives consistent with it. Not that they happen to not, but that it is not possible.
    People can't live their lives consistent with subjective morality? I don't see why not. Since subjective morality comes from one's own mind, they only have to live consistently with their own morals in order to live in a way that is consistent with subjective morality. I suppose people may fall short of their own morals at times (such as being subjectively against greed but sometimes being greedy yourself), but then believers in objective morality are just as susceptible to falling short of their moral system.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well the advantage would be predicated on it actually being God's word. I would say that anytime God speaks we should listen, be it our own moral compass or prophet, or the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ.
    That's my point, though. If a subjectivist listens to his moral compass without realizing that it's actually the word of God, there is no effective difference between him and an objectivist as far as who behaves more morally. If rmorality is objective, the only actual advantage that the objectivist has is that his position is more factually correct (he might be wrong about a lot of things but at least he's right that morality is objective). But then if the subjectivist is right, then the objectivist just thinks he's following the edicts of a morally objective source when he's really just following subjective morality. So the difference between the two is pretty miniscule. There is no practical difference on effective outcome (neither behaves more morally) and the actual difference is not known (given we don't know if morality is objective or subjective).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As to the goodness of man, I don't believe that. I believe in duality of man. Like the garden of eden, we have the knowledge of both good an evil in us, and choosing evil is natural to us.
    We are fallen and in need of a savior, and I believe everyone knows they are not perfect, they just don't want to connect that with needing to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. IMO (not directed at you personally) but it is a great lie to believe that we are essentially good, as it denies our fundamental need for a savior. "Good enough" comes up a lot.
    I don't want to get too deep into any specific religion. But I will say that I think that spiritually, how we behave towards in each is much more important than what our religious/spiritual beliefs are. Assuming there's a God that's going to judge us, I think an atheist who is kind is doing better than someone who has strong religious beliefs but is awful to his fellow man.

    Assuming there is a God who has forwarded objective morals, an atheist who is kind to his kids is doing a better job at adhering to God's morals than a devout Christian who beats his kids.
    Last edited by mican333; April 13th, 2017 at 11:29 AM.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

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
  •