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 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14
Results 261 to 276 of 276
  1. #261
    ODN Community Regular

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Any second-hand knowledge can be questioned. We all went through 12+years of learning things primarily through second hand knowledge (teachers telling us things). And of course for those things that we can't or haven't verified for ourselves (like history and to some extent science), there is room to question what we've learned. But we don't discount everything that we learned second-hand and say it's not actually knowledge because there is some room for doubt.
    No one would express learning in such a cavalier manner unless it was done to try and win an argument. Learning is not the act of blindly receiving information (be it from a teacher or a god).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Plus, this really feeling like a semantic argument. Whatever you want to call it, it's theoretically possible to receive a level of certainty in objective moral truths that justifies accepting that the morals in question are indeed objectively true. And if the communicator is God, a omnipotent being with unlimited ability, God can make a person more certain of objective moral truths than they are certain of anything else - even their own existence.
    You are introducing, not only a hypothetical god, but a hypothetical god who passes messages in a hypothetical manner which tautologically defends your argument. By your same logic, god could also make a person less certain of objective moral truths than they would be when compared to anything else. As humans, should god exists, we'd have no means of knowing one way or the other. Hence, such a relationship would be guided by faith, not knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And likewise, IF God actually talked to someone, I'd say that person can be quite justified in holding the God talked to them. Raising the bar of certainty so high that one argues that the person can't know is likely just based on an artificial raising of the bar to make it fall under the certainty that one needs for their argument.
    Really? Lots of people claim to talk to God. Often they fall under the category of mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I don't really see an objective argument for saying that one can't know that certain objective morals insist. Your argument seemed to be based on either semantics or setting the bar as you need to for your argument.
    This is kind of a funny bit of rhetorical nonsense from you considering your entire rebuttal has been based on a hypothetical god and his hypothetical messages.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then my argument just allows for it so I have no need to support that it's actually true.
    You must demonstrate either that it is possible or that it is logical. You have done neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Please consider me to be arguing from the agnostic position and therefore hold that whether God actually exists is not known and I will not argue otherwise.
    Ok. That's fine. I am also arguing from an agnostic position. We cannot know if god exists and if god spoke to us, then we'd have concrete proof. Hence, we would not be agnostic anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, my argument makes no mentions of fairies and things that are generally considered to be make-believe so introducing that stuff is a red herring.

    And my argument is that man-God communication is possible and I can support that by pointing out that no one has supported that it's not possible. Until something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible. If you want to argue that it's impossible or that the odds of is happening are very small, you will need to provide support for that. Otherwise my argument it's possible stands.
    Your entire hypothetical argument is make-believe. You have not pointed to an objective god nor an actual conversation. By definition, it is entirely made up.

    Let's go a tiny bit further though. You have created a hypothetical situation between a man a god and a make-believe message explaining what is objectively moral. Even if this man was 100% positive that the message was from god and knew that god's message was truthful, would this change Man's condition? Could society believe a man who claimed to have spoken to god and who claimed to know what was objectively moral?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #262
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No one would express learning in such a cavalier manner unless it was done to try and win an argument. Learning is not the act of blindly receiving information (be it from a teacher or a god).
    No one would misinterpret another's argument in such a fashion unless it was done to try and win an argument (I guess if you're going to accuse me of making disingenous arguments, I'll do the same but I think it would be better if we both didn't do that).

    My argument in no way says that learning is blindly receiving information and even says that a element of doubt is acceptable when one learns second-hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are introducing, not only a hypothetical god, but a hypothetical god who passes messages in a hypothetical manner which tautologically defends your argument.
    I am introducing a hypothetical which is possible and therefore supporting my argument that such a thing is possible which means that it's possible that people can learn objective moral truths.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    By your same logic, god could also make a person less certain of objective moral truths than they would be when compared to anything else.
    And that is also something that is possible. But that in no way rebuts that the hypothetical that I introduced is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Really? Lots of people claim to talk to God. Often they fall under the category of mentally ill.
    I don't see how that rebuts my argument. If you are arguing that all people who believe God talks to them are mentally ill, you will need to support that. And again, all of them - not some of them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is kind of a funny bit of rhetorical nonsense from you considering your entire rebuttal has been based on a hypothetical god and his hypothetical messages.
    If there was something wrong with introducing a hypothetical into one's argument, you'd have a point. But hypotheticals are entirely valid in arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You must demonstrate either that it is possible or that it is logical. You have done neither.
    I have demonstrated that it is possible. But I will do it again.

    It's a truism that unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible. No one has shown that my hypothetical is impossible and therefore it must be considered possible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok. That's fine. I am also arguing from an agnostic position. We cannot know if god exists and if god spoke to us, then we'd have concrete proof. Hence, we would not be agnostic anymore.
    If you don't know if God exists, then you have to concede that God may or may not exist. IF God exists, God is certainly capable of letting people know that there are certain objective morals but we likewise don't know if that happens if God even exists

    Therefore we don't know if anyone knows if objective morals exist or not. Therefor as agnostics, we have to admit that it's possible that some people might know of objective morals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your entire hypothetical argument is make-believe. You have not pointed to an objective god nor an actual conversation. By definition, it is entirely made up.
    No, it's not. First off, I did not not invent the hypothetical scenario as in the concept of God talking to man and giving morals to him is a very old concept (the story of the ten commandments is such a story) so if it's made-up, it wasn't made up by me. And if it actually happened - God has talked to man - then it's not made up at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's go a tiny bit further though. You have created a hypothetical situation between a man a god and a make-believe message explaining what is objectively moral. Even if this man was 100% positive that the message was from god and knew that god's message was truthful, would this change Man's condition? Could society believe a man who claimed to have spoken to god and who claimed to know what was objectively moral?
    I don't want to move on until the first issue is settled. So do you agree that it's possible that such a scenario, like this one, could possible happen?
    Last edited by mican333; September 25th, 2017 at 01:01 PM.

  3. #263
    ODN Community Regular

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

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No one would misinterpret another's argument in such a fashion unless it was done to try and win an argument (I guess if you're going to accuse me of making disingenous arguments, I'll do the same but I think it would be better if we both didn't do that).

    My argument in no way says that learning is blindly receiving information and even says that a element of doubt is acceptable when one learns second-hand.




    I am introducing a hypothetical which is possible and therefore supporting my argument that such a thing is possible which means that it's possible that people can learn objective moral truths.




    And that is also something that is possible. But that in no way rebuts that the hypothetical that I introduced is possible.




    I don't see how that rebuts my argument. If you are arguing that all people who believe God talks to them are mentally ill, you will need to support that. And again, all of them - not some of them.





    If there was something wrong with introducing a hypothetical into one's argument, you'd have a point. But hypotheticals are entirely valid in arguments.




    I have demonstrated that it is possible. But I will do it again.

    It's a truism that unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible. No one has shown that my hypothetical is impossible and therefore it must be considered possible.





    If you don't know if God exists, then you have to concede that God may or may not exist. IF God exists, God is certainly capable of letting people know that there are certain objective morals but we likewise don't know if that happens if God even exists

    Therefore we don't know if anyone knows if objective morals exist or not. Therefor as agnostics, we have to admit that it's possible that some people might know of objective morals.




    No, it's not. First off, I did not not invent the hypothetical scenario as in the concept of God talking to man and giving morals to him is a very old concept (the story of the ten commandments is such a story) so it's made-up, it wasn't made up by me. And if it actually happened - God has talked to man - then it's not made up at all.




    I don't want to move on until the first issue is settled. So do you agree that it's possible that such a scenario, like this one, could possible happen?
    First, let's define knowledge (knowing).
    "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

    A more verbose explanation is here:
    https://www.giffordlectures.org/book...-and-knowledge

    This is important because knowledge from god would be, at best, knowledge by acquaintance which is a belief that what god is saying is true. It is not descriptive knowledge. The mere fact one is speaking to god, would in and of itself, require a belief.

    1) It is possible god exists.
    2) It is possible god can talk to man.
    3) It is possible god could tell man what is objectively moral.
    4) It is possible god is telling the truth.
    5) It is possible god is telling a lie.
    6) It is possible man would misunderstand the message.
    7) It is possible man never heard god at all (i.e. is crazy).

    All of the above are equally possible, and therefore, man could never be 100% certain that he spoke to god or that the message he heard was understood or that the message was truthful. Any insistence by a man that he spoke to god and harbors no doubts is simply an act of faith, not an act of reason. See my explanation of belief v. knowledge above. Therefore, we could not claim that man "knows" the message from god, merely, that he, at best, understands the message and believes it. I may believe the earth is flat or I may believe that it is round. God could tell me either and I could choose to believe it or not. However, without seeing the images of the earth or studying the science, I could never claim it to be something I know unless I am speaking strictly from the pov of faith (or knowledge by acquaintance). God could show me the images of earth from space, but without seeing the actual images, I am limited to "knowing" only by belief which is less than factual knowledge.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #264
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is important because knowledge from god would be, at best, knowledge by acquaintance which is a belief that what god is saying is true. It is not descriptive knowledge. The mere fact one is speaking to god, would in and of itself, require a belief.
    And speaking with God would create that belief as one would likely be convinced that God exists once he/she has talked with God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) It is possible god exists.
    2) It is possible god can talk to man.
    3) It is possible god could tell man what is objectively moral.
    4) It is possible god is telling the truth.
    5) It is possible god is telling a lie.
    6) It is possible man would misunderstand the message.
    7) It is possible man never heard god at all (i.e. is crazy).

    All of the above are equally possible, and therefore, man could never be 100% certain that he spoke to god or that the message he heard was understood or that the message was truthful.
    But the 100% is an artificial bar. No one is 100% certain of ANYTHING. Perhaps your whole life is an illusion and you aren't even who you think you are - you get the idea. We don't require 100% certainty in order to consider that one has knowledge of something. Really the bar is what we would consider attaining knowledge in our daily lives. If you see a dog on your lawn, you can reasonably say that you know you that there was as dog on your lawn even if you can never prove it to anyone. Sure, the dog could be a hallucination or a false memory but that doesn't change the fact that you still "know" that there was a dog on your lawn.

    So if one actually meets with God and God tells that person something, that is typically good enough to count as attaining knowledge and raising the bar of certainty or calling the knowledge a different word doesn't really change that. And if it so happens that what the person was told is true, then they have knowledge of the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Any insistence by a man that he spoke to god and harbors no doubts is simply an act of faith, not an act of reason.
    Again, the "no doubt" level is an artificial bar. If the man is as certain that he spoke to God as you are certain that there was a dog on your lawn, then the person has legitimate knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Therefore, we could not claim that man "knows" the message from god, merely, that he, at best, understands the message and believes it. I may believe the earth is flat or I may believe that it is round. God could tell me either and I could choose to believe it or not. However, without seeing the images of the earth or studying the science, I could never claim it to be something I know unless I am speaking strictly from the pov of faith (or knowledge by acquaintance). God could show me the images of earth from space, but without seeing the actual images, I am limited to "knowing" only by belief which is less than factual knowledge.
    Factual knowledge is knowledge that is true. If God has told you something that you believe and likewise that thing is true then meeting God has lead you to believe something that is true. Whether you are 100% certain or perhaps a little less certain than that doesn't really make much of a difference.

    The point is that in that situation, one has been made aware that a certain moral position is objectively true. This can happen.

    And also, God, being omnipotent CAN make someone 100% certain. An all-powerful being is certainly powerful enough to make a human absolutely certain of something.

  5. #265
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, whether something is ill-defined is subjective. "Ill-defined" means that someone (in this case you) PERSONALLY is unsatisfied with how something is defined. No matter how well I define something, you can always claim that it's not good enough for you.
    I already explained for you why it's ill-defined using objective standards - I even provided the example of gogulmogul, and you have not coherently responded to the issues. Your continued insistence that it's subjective to me personally is merely an assertion without support.

    As it stands now, your OP is ill-defined, and therefore does not pass muster.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's about a standard of right and wrong and therefore there has to be a source that creates the standard.
    This is just another assertion. Support or retract. You've already stated that the moral positions would be facts about reality just like the shape of the earth. Do facts about reality have to be created by a source?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm referring to the person's knowledge helping him invest wisely, not how many investors the expedition gets. You DO agree that when it comes to investing, the better the information one has, the greater advantage one has in making such decisions, right?
    A society's moral system, like it's scientific endeavours, aren't one-man operations, which is the point you are missing. Just because one man will be somehow miraculously able to know that an expedition will be successful and will therefore invest in it won't guarantee that the expedition will have enough investment to be successful.
    Of course, there could very well be countless endeavours that have received just that one lone loony's miraculously inspired investment. I guess you could say that he was correct, and that this had some pointless advantage, but the endeavor itself was not successful. However, the endeavours with rational support that they were correct were successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Fear of punishment for doing something is a disincentive for doing it. Therefore those who know that they will be punished in the afterlife for doing a particular thing are less likely to do it all else being equal. That is logical support for my assertion.
    Your claim was that those who fear punishment of an objective source would be less likely to do it than those who don't do it because of reasons other than fear of punishment by an objective source. You have simply yet again asserted that they are "less likely" just because they fear punishment by an objective source. Support this assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I said I would move to the societal advantage once you concede the personal advantage. Do you concede it?
    I concede that you attempted to provide an example of an advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Fear of punishment for doing something gives a person a disincentive to do that thing.
    Providing a source of disincentive is not support that the person holding to morals from an objective punishing source is less like than the person who doesn't hold to that punishing source. You keep saying "less likely", but when asked to support it, all you say is that they have a disincentive. I understand that you think that because they have a disincentive, but you still haven't supported why that disincentive would make them less likely to do it than people who believe it's wrong for other reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So my argument, again, is IF objective morals exist and IF people adhere to those morals, there are real-world advantage.
    Yes, IF they adhere. This is what is required for any advantage. Therefore, if there's no way to ensure that they do adhere, there is no advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract this claim.
    The burden is on you to support a causal relationship between holding to objective morality from a punishing objective source and being less likely to commit crimes than someone who doesn't hold to objective morality from an objective source.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, in secular societies we tell people that if they murder, they will be punished - such as they will receive a harsh prison sentence or maybe the death sentence. And I think it's pretty safe to say that this decreases murder compared to societies that do not threaten societal punishment for murder.
    Again, this does not support a causal relationship between being told you'll be punished and not doing it. Especially since, in secular societied, we don't simply tell people that they'll go to jail if they murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So assuming you agree with me on this, I have supported that threat of punishment is a disincentive.
    Again, your comparison of "less likely" has not been supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just because you aren't impressed with my supported arguments does not mean that I have not supported my argument.
    I have explained to you why the advantage you offered doesn't make objective morality from an objective source superior.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You don't get to alter my argument. My argument does apply to the individual. But then the individual is a microcosm of a society so the more a societies individuals are operating with correct information, the better it is for the society.
    Ok, so your argument is actually the more people in a society that adhere to the correct moral positions, the better - which would be an actual advantage. So how does objective morality from an objective source ensure that more people in a society adhere? Without that crucial part, there's no advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    All else being equal, having correct information is better than having incorrect information.
    You keep repeating "all else being equal" as if it actually means anything. But all things are not equal. We have a society which requires rational support for the endeavours in which it invests - and that include morality. When one moral system does not have the same/equal rational support for it, the situation is not equal. That's why your OP is pointless - it assumes that all things are equal, and the only criteria for determining which moral system is superior is which ever is correct, ignoring the fact that it lacks rational support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean I agree with you that having correct information for rational reasons is better than simply having correct information but that in no way rebuts the argument that correct information is better than incorrect information.
    Sure, but again, the only value in such a statement exists when we are able to rationally support which is correct and which is incorrect. Before then, there's no value to any information, correct or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's better to know that you shouldn't stick your finger in a light socket even if you don't know why should shouldn't than it is to think that it's alright to stick your finger in a light socket.
    Again, there's only value in being correct about that if there's rational support for why it's correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No I'm not.
    Then you agree that, if objective morality as per your ill-defined OP is true, someone could be correct about a moral position without holding that it is an objective moral position from an objective source?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    True. But then they cannot be correct on which moral position to hold if objective morality does not exist. In other words, if morality is strictly subjective (there is no objective morality), then the correctness of a moral position is likewise subjective and therefore none can be truly correct.
    You have not supported that objective morality cannot exist without being forwarded/created/whatever by an objective source.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In other words, if morality is subjective
    Sigh... we've been through this before. It's not "morality is subjective/objective", it's "objective morality is objective" and "subjective morality is subjective".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And please don't read that as a criticism of subjective morality. If there is no objective morality, then subjective morality is superior as the subjective moralist is at least correct on his morals being his own while an objective moralist is following another human's morality because he confuses it with something that a "greater being" has forwarded.
    I don't take it as a criticism, since I don't think what our society does is subjective morality - hence my statement that the OP is pointless right off the bat. What we do is called situational ethics, and it is the closest thing to objective morality that we have. That you don't seem able to see it as anything other than objective morality from an objective source such as God vs. subjective morality based on human opinion is really the issue.

    ---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If the man is as certain that he spoke to God as you are certain that there was a dog on your lawn, then the person has legitimate knowledge.
    Not all claims are equal. Someone claiming to have legitimate knowledge that there was a dog on their lawn because they saw it is not the same as someone claiming to have legitimate knowledge of God because they spoke to him, regardless of how certain they feel or claim they are.

  6. #266
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I already explained for you why it's ill-defined using objective standards - I even provided the example of gogulmogul, and you have not coherently responded to the issues. Your continued insistence that it's subjective to me personally is merely an assertion without support.

    As it stands now, your OP is ill-defined, and therefore does not pass muster.
    Then feel free to not respond to the portion of it that you find too ill-defined to generate a response to.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is just another assertion. Support or retract. You've already stated that the moral positions would be facts about reality just like the shape of the earth. Do facts about reality have to be created by a source?
    Some do and some don't. Bridges objectively exist and likewise have a source.

    And the support is that 100% of all known moral positions have a source.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    A society's moral system, like it's scientific endeavours, aren't one-man operations, which is the point you are missing. Just because one man will be somehow miraculously able to know that an expedition will be successful and will therefore invest in it won't guarantee that the expedition will have enough investment to be successful.
    My scenario is that the expedition is going to happen (so it already has enough investors to take place) and that he has to decide whether or not to invest in it. And AGAIN, the more he knows about the project he is investing it, the better decisions he can make regarding his investment. I'm not missing your point - your point is irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your claim was that those who fear punishment of an objective source would be less likely to do it than those who don't do it because of reasons other than fear of punishment by an objective source.
    No I'm not. Fearing punishment from an objective source and fear of punishment from other sources is not mutually exclusive. The more sources of potential punishment averrable, the greater the disincentive for wrongdoing. A kid who fears punishment from his school, his family, and law enforcement is less like to take wrong action than a kid who only face punishment from family. And if you add fear of punishment from an objective source amongst the other sources of punishment, the person has even more reason to not do the wrong thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I concede that you attempted to provide an example of an advantage.
    If you don't concede it, then it's still an issue of debate so we aren't moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Providing a source of disincentive is not support that the person holding to morals from an objective punishing source is less like than the person who doesn't hold to that punishing source. You keep saying "less likely", but when asked to support it, all you say is that they have a disincentive. I understand that you think that because they have a disincentive, but you still haven't supported why that disincentive would make them less likely to do it than people who believe it's wrong for other reasons.
    That's because I didn't argue a comparison to a different source. Either one believes in an objective moral source of punishment or they do not believe in something like that. If they don't believe in something like that, there is no similar source of punishment that they concern themselves with instead.

    In other words, a subjective moralist will fear legal punishment for a crime and an objective moralist will fear legal punishment AND punishment from an objective source - in other words, the objective moralist has one additional source of punishment. Since he has more sources of punishment, he is less likely to act in a way that violates whatever supposedly objective morals he believes.

    So there is my support. I will not respond to other arguments that ask for this support to avoid redundancy.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, IF they adhere. This is what is required for any advantage. Therefore, if there's no way to ensure that they do adhere, there is no advantage.
    But then I've just supported that the thread of punishment make them more likely to adhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Ok, so your argument is actually the more people in a society that adhere to the correct moral positions, the better - which would be an actual advantage. So how does objective morality from an objective source ensure that more people in a society adhere? Without that crucial part, there's no advantage.
    I don't see how the people get their objectively correct moral positions particularly relevant to whether them having these positions is advantageous. If we have less murder, that's good regardless of why it happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You keep repeating "all else being equal" as if it actually means anything. But all things are not equal. We have a society which requires rational support for the endeavours in which it invests - and that include morality. When one moral system does not have the same/equal rational support for it, the situation is not equal. That's why your OP is pointless - it assumes that all things are equal, and the only criteria for determining which moral system is superior is which ever is correct, ignoring the fact that it lacks rational support.
    "All else being equal" means that you ignore aspects that are not relevant to the conversation. And you have provided absolutely no rebuttal to the notion that correct information is better than incorrect information. I mean if you were trying to defuse a bomb, which you would prefer - a decision that was made with rationality but was wrong or an irrational lucky guess which was right?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Sure, but again, the only value in such a statement exists when we are able to rationally support which is correct and which is incorrect. Before then, there's no value to any information, correct or not.
    I have a one word rebuttal. BOOM!


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, there's only value in being correct about that if there's rational support for why it's correct.
    So not getting blown up is not of value if you don't rationally know why you didn't get blown up?

    And of course a bomb is just one scenario but I really can't think of too many situations where having correct information is not better than having incorrect information even if the correct information isn't attained rationally.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then you agree that, if objective morality as per your ill-defined OP is true, someone could be correct about a moral position without holding that it is an objective moral position from an objective source?
    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I don't take it as a criticism, since I don't think what our society does is subjective morality - hence my statement that the OP is pointless right off the bat. What we do is called situational ethics, and it is the closest thing to objective morality that we have. That you don't seem able to see it as anything other than objective morality from an objective source such as God vs. subjective morality based on human opinion is really the issue.
    I don't hold that god is only possible source of objective morality but it certainly is a classic example which works pretty well for our discussion.

    And since no one has proved that this doesn't happen, it can't be discarded willy nilly.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Not all claims are equal. Someone claiming to have legitimate knowledge that there was a dog on their lawn because they saw it is not the same as someone claiming to have legitimate knowledge of God because they spoke to him, regardless of how certain they feel or claim they are.
    I'm not referring to any external claim such as telling someone else about the experience but what the person himself knows (assume he tells no one).

    So assuming the God incident actually happened, how does it fail to qualify as legitimate knowledge (and please keep the dog comparison in mind when answering)?

  7. #267
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then feel free to not respond to the portion of it that you find too ill-defined to generate a response to.
    Again, to repeat once more yet another time, I have never stated that I find it ill-defined. I explained to you why it is ill-defined. All you have done so far is retract your initial response to the issue raised, and then claim without support that I personally find it ill-defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Some do and some don't. Bridges objectively exist and likewise have a source.
    You're using the terminology of "facts created by a source" quite ambiguously. The fact that a bridge exists and was built by humans are facts about reality. Were these facts created by a source? Further, you need to clarify how you're using "created", since bridges built by humans and supposed facts about reality being created by an objective source are quite different.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the support is that 100% of all known moral positions have a source.
    The moral position of "cutting off someone's head is wrong" is based on objective facts which don't have or require a source. The source is literally the nature of reality itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My scenario is that the expedition is going to happen (so it already has enough investors to take place) and that he has to decide whether or not to invest in it. And AGAIN, the more he knows about the project he is investing it, the better decisions he can make regarding his investment. I'm not missing your point - your point is irrelevant.
    Your original scenario: Let's say that there was a shipping company that was preparing to try to ship to other areas of the world and were looking for investors. The fact that this guy knows that Earth is round gives him an advantage on whether to invest or not.
    So, in that scenario, the advantage is directly dependent on the success of the endeavour.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The more sources of potential punishment averrable, the greater the disincentive for wrongdoing. A kid who fears punishment from his school, his family, and law enforcement is less like to take wrong action than a kid who only face punishment from family. And if you add fear of punishment from an objective source amongst the other sources of punishment, the person has even more reason to not do the wrong thing.
    Your point simply lacks rational justification. First of all, the different punishments cover different aspects of the act. Punishment from family and the law aren't guaranteed simply by committing the act, but only if one is caught. If someone is presented with human punishment, their thought is "I better not do that because I'll be punished if I get caught". If someone is also presented with eternal punishment in the afterlife, the though is instead "I better not do that because I'll be punished for doing it". Therefore, fear of human punishment is evaluated through the lens of the probability of being caught, which would contribute to deterring the person from getting caught doing it, and not so much from simply doing it. Whereas, the point you're trying to make is that fear of eternal punishment in the afterlife is a deterrent to doing the act, and you still haven't supported a causal relationship between the two. This is your burden to support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you don't concede it, then it's still an issue of debate so we aren't moving on.
    I just said I concede it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's because I didn't argue a comparison to a different source. Either one believes in an objective moral source of punishment or they do not believe in something like that.
    "Less likely" inherently implies a comparison (1 is less than 2).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since he has more sources of punishment, he is less likely to act in a way that violates whatever supposedly objective morals he believes.
    Again, "less likely" than what? This is what you need to support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I've just supported that the thread of punishment make them more likely to adhere. I don't see how the people get their objectively correct moral positions particularly relevant to whether them having these positions is advantageous. If we have less murder, that's good regardless of why it happens.
    First, you haven't supported it. Second, how can they be correctly aware of the punishment, since that is what is required for any advantage? Again, you are making a leap without support. You seem to rely solely on things just miraculously happening as part of your nebulous hypothetical scenarios in order to support your arguments, without supporting how those miraculous things are even possible. So yet again for another time to repeat once more: How does objective morality from an objective source ensure that more people in a society adhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "All else being equal" means that you ignore aspects that are not relevant to the conversation.
    Please support why the fact that societies require rational support for the endeavours in which they invest is not relevant to the conversation of which moral system is better for society.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And you have provided absolutely no rebuttal to the notion that correct information is better than incorrect information.
    Again, because all things are not equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean if you were trying to defuse a bomb, which you would prefer - a decision that was made with rationality but was wrong or an irrational lucky guess which was right?
    Hind-sight is 20/20, and being able to identify which was the correct lucky answer has no value after the fact. Humans successfully utilize their rational minds, and have done so pretty much since they became humans. It's the ability to use rational thinking instead of relying on luck which ensures our survival. Sure, in a single situation, after the fact, we can say that the person whose blind luck guess happened to be right survived the bomb, and the person who used rational justification to decide which wire to cut died. But that's not the situation we're in, which is a society deciding which moral system to employ. The system which ensures reliable and repeatable results will be successful, not the system which relies on blind luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have a one word rebuttal. BOOM!
    Your rebuttal proves my point. Here we are as a society before the BOOM. We can choose to rely on blind luck and hope that it turns out right, or use rational justification in deciding how to act. All your point boils down to is telling the society that after the BOOM, they'll know who was right, which is of absolutely no value in our current situation before the BOOM. That's why this thread is essentially pointless, to which you already agreed, I might add.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So not getting blown up is not of value if you don't rationally know why you didn't get blown up?
    In the case where a group of people must decide together in which endeavour to invest before the BOOM, yes. Since this is the situation in which we find ourselves, your point is completely of no value.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yes.
    Then it's entirely possible that those not holding to moral positions from an objective source could still be 100% correct about which moral positions are correct, thus nullifying any advantage to those holding to moral positions from an objective source.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't hold that god is only possible source of objective morality but it certainly is a classic example which works pretty well for our discussion.
    No it doesn't work pretty well, for the reasons already explained to you, to which you haven't responded.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And since no one has proved that this doesn't happen, it can't be discarded willy nilly.
    It can, since no one has provided any support that it does. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So assuming the God incident actually happened, how does it fail to qualify as legitimate knowledge (and please keep the dog comparison in mind when answering)?
    Because not all claims are equal, and a rational person considering the various experiences they have (God and dog) is essentially considering the experiences as claims to themselves when determining how to evaluate each experience. Seeing a dog and believing there's a dog is nowhere near hearing a God and believing there's a God in terms of what would be required as support. The person who awards the same level of certainty to each experience is simply being irrational, and their claim of knowledge is therefore of no value.

  8. #268
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, to repeat once more yet another time, I have never stated that I find it ill-defined. I explained to you why it is ill-defined. All you have done so far is retract your initial response to the issue raised, and then claim without support that I personally find it ill-defined.
    Since you are saying it's ill-defined, you OBVIOUSLY personally find it ill-defined. That's just simple logic. The question is whether you are right in it being ill-defined. And my answer to that question is "I don't care".

    The ONLY problem with an OP being ill-defined is that it hampers debate. IF an OP is ill-defined, then its inaccuracy will cause confusion since what the OP is stating is not clear enough to work with. But the clear and obvious fact is that you do find it well-defend enough to have a coherent debate as evidenced by everything that's below this.

    So we have a debate going so whatever problems you have with the OP, it does not effect whether you are able to debate it coherently. So however you find the OP ill-defined, it's not a really a problem here.

    So in other words, I don't care if it is or is not ill-defined as you claim it is. It's clearly not so ill-defined that we can't work with it.

    So I'm not challenging your assertion that it's ill-defined. I'm ignoring it. I don't care. Let's just debate the stuff that is well-defined enough to generate coherent debate and not worry about the rest.




    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You're using the terminology of "facts created by a source" quite ambiguously. The fact that a bridge exists and was built by humans are facts about reality. Were these facts created by a source?
    No. But them I'm not arguing that facts are created by a source. I'm saying that morality is created by a source. And the evidence is that every single moral that we know of were created by sources.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The moral position of "cutting off someone's head is wrong" is based on objective facts which don't have or require a source. The source is literally the nature of reality itself.
    The morality of killing someone does not come from the act of killing but from one's view of the killing. the position that "It's wrong to kill someone" will not exist without a being of some kind thinking that it is wrong. If you disagree, then show me a coherent alternative to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your original scenario: Let's say that there was a shipping company that was preparing to try to ship to other areas of the world and were looking for investors. The fact that this guy knows that Earth is round gives him an advantage on whether to invest or not.
    So, in that scenario, the advantage is directly dependent on the success of the endeavor.
    No it's not. Let me show this in a series of questions (with answers).
    What does the advantage pertain to? Whether to invest or not.
    So what does he need in order to gain an advantage? An accurate assessment in whether the endeavor will succeed of fail
    So does he lose his advantage if the expedition fails? No - his advantage is an accurate assessment so if the expedition will fail, then his advantage will allow him to know that and not invest.

    So it doesn't matter if the expedition will succeed or fail. As long as he can accurately guess which it will be, he better has the ability to make a good investment. And having knowledge that the world is round will help him make a good decision and therefore give him an advantage over people who don't know that the world is round.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your point simply lacks rational justification. First of all, the different punishments cover different aspects of the act. Punishment from family and the law aren't guaranteed simply by committing the act, but only if one is caught. If someone is presented with human punishment, their thought is "I better not do that because I'll be punished if I get caught". If someone is also presented with eternal punishment in the afterlife, the though is instead "I better not do that because I'll be punished for doing it". Therefore, fear of human punishment is evaluated through the lens of the probability of being caught, which would contribute to deterring the person from getting caught doing it, and not so much from simply doing it. Whereas, the point you're trying to make is that fear of eternal punishment in the afterlife is a deterrent to doing the act, and you still haven't supported a causal relationship between the two. This is your burden to support.
    Fear of punishment for an act is a deterrent to doing the act. There is nothing regarding the punishment being due to violating an objective moral position that changes that. There is your support. You can argue against this support but you cannot say that it has not been given.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I just said I concede it.
    No you didn't. You said that you concede that I attempted to show an advantage. So do you concede that I showed an actual advantage? Yes or No.

    If yes, we can move on.
    If no, then we aren't moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "Less likely" inherently implies a comparison (1 is less than 2).
    Less likely than nothing, of course. In other words, one is less likely to not do something under threat of punishment than there is no threat of punishment.

    You do concede this, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    First, you haven't supported it.
    Yes I have. You can challenge support when I give it but you can't just ignore it and prevent it wasn't given.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Second, how can they be correctly aware of the punishment, since that is what is required for any advantage?
    That's a question, not a rebuttal. If you are going to argue that they cannot be aware of such punishment, then you need to support that position.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, you are making a leap without support. You seem to rely solely on things just miraculously happening as part of your nebulous hypothetical scenarios in order to support your arguments, without supporting how those miraculous things are even possible. So yet again for another time to repeat once more: How does objective morality from an objective source ensure that more people in a society adhere?
    I can support that they are possible. Below is a logic chain with conclusion following the points that came before it.

    1. TRUISM - until something is proven to be impossible, it must be possible.
    2. In this debate no support has been given that people learning objective moral truths (assuming they exist) is impossible.
    3. CONCLUSION - Therefore, assuming that objective morals exist, it's possible for people to learn of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please support why the fact that societies require rational support for the endeavours in which they invest is not relevant to the conversation of which moral system is better for society.
    It might be relevant for a discussion, but it's irrelevant to my argument. Whether it is true or not does not make any difference in whether my argument is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, because all things are not equal.
    I didn't argue that all things are equal so this is not a valid rebuttal.

    And likewise I didn't even use the phrase in my last statement so that rebuttal does not apply. So I will repeat it.

    You have provided absolutely no rebuttal to the notion that correct information is better than incorrect information.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your rebuttal proves my point. Here we are as a society before the BOOM. We can choose to rely on blind luck and hope that it turns out right, or use rational justification in deciding how to act. All your point boils down to is telling the society that after the BOOM, they'll know who was right, which is of absolutely no value in our current situation before the BOOM.
    No. Before the BOOM, we want to pick the guy who will actually succeed in defusing the bomb. And really, "lucky guess" isn't quite right (so let me change the scenario a bit to make it more in-line with objective vs subjective morality). An objective moralist, if they are right, knows the correct morality but just can't explain it rationally. So in the bomb scenario, you have someone who does know how to defuse the bomb but can't rationally explain how he knows and someone who can rationally explain his reasoning on why his method will work but ultimately will fail.

    Which one do you want to defuse the bomb? I'd pick the one who would succeed myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In the case where a group of people must decide together in which endeavour to invest before the BOOM, yes. Since this is the situation in which we find ourselves, your point is completely of no value.
    I'm just forwarding the point that correct information is better than incorrect information. You are the one who is introducing the issue of whether it is rationally attained or not and you have not supported that rationally attained incorrect information is better than correct information that can't be rationally explained.

    So you have provided no valid exceptions to my argument that correct information is better than incorrect information.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then it's entirely possible that those not holding to moral positions from an objective source could still be 100% correct about which moral positions are correct, thus nullifying any advantage to those holding to moral positions from an objective source.
    Except that they are incorrect on the source of their moral positions and likewise have less motivation to abide by them than those who believe that those positions are objectively correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No it doesn't work pretty well, for the reasons already explained to you, to which you haven't responded.
    I don't know what reasons you are referring to but what I mean by "it works pretty well" is that it is a very common and clear concept on how an objective moral source could let people know what objective morals are.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It can, since no one has provided any support that it does. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    Without support that it does happen and without support that it doesn't happen, the only valid conclusion is that it's possible that it happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Because not all claims are equal, and a rational person considering the various experiences they have (God and dog) is essentially considering the experiences as claims to themselves when determining how to evaluate each experience. Seeing a dog and believing there's a dog is nowhere near hearing a God and believing there's a God in terms of what would be required as support. The person who awards the same level of certainty to each experience is simply being irrational, and their claim of knowledge is therefore of no value.
    I'm not talking about claims of knowledge but just knowledge. And just saying they aren't the same will not suffice. Again, how does actual contract with God fail as valid knowledge of God's existence?
    Last edited by mican333; October 1st, 2017 at 08:28 AM.

  9. #269
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    371
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since you are saying it's ill-defined, you OBVIOUSLY personally find it ill-defined. That's just simple logic. The question is whether you are right in it being ill-defined. And my answer to that question is "I don't care".
    That settles it then. If you don't care that your argument is ill-defined, then there really is no point in continuing to debate it, especially since you already agreed that it is pointless:
    "In day-to-day application, yes. But I don't think debating the actual source of morality is inherently uninteresting even if no applicable results occur".

    Unfortunately, it's clear you also find debating the actually source of morality inherently uninteresting, contrary to your above statement, since you've avoided actually engaging in a worthwhile discussion about the actual source, or how secular morality actually works in the world.

    In the end, I think Dio put it most simply in post #22 with:
    "This does beg the question of what we mean by "superior", but if by that we mean a system of morality that provides reliable, sensible results, then I think we do have some insight as to what sort of system might be better than another."

    Since the criteria for superiority set out by your OP don't actually allow us to determine which is superior - ignoring the glaring issue that the alternatives offered are ill-defined - we have no choice but to establish other criteria, which, I'd argue, society has already done, and has been doing since it had the ability to evaluate things in terms of whether they provide reliable, sensible results.

    We constantly find ourselves in the position of "before the BOOM", always needing to decide what to do based solely on what previously happened and making decisions using rational evaluations of what will ensure the best results according to our goals. Your failure to accept why this makes your entirely post hoc superiority criteria completely useless is the crux of why your OP is ultimately pointless.

  10. #270
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    That settles it then. If you don't care that your argument is ill-defined, then there really is no point in continuing to debate it, especially since you already agreed that it is pointless:
    "In day-to-day application, yes. But I don't think debating the actual source of morality is inherently uninteresting even if no applicable results occur".
    I don't care if my argument is ill-defined because whether or not it is ill-defined apparently has no relevance to whether it is correct or not. We are debating whether the argument in the OP is correct or not. If the OP was "ill-defined" in some way that either renders the OP's argument wrong or makes it significantly difficult to engage in a debate, then I would be concerned if the OP was "ill-defined". But that is not the case. It just looks to me like you are nit-picking some kind of flaw in the OP that doesn't actually effect the debate itself. Therefore I don't care about such a supposed flaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Unfortunately, it's clear you also find debating the actually source of morality inherently uninteresting, contrary to your above statement, since you've avoided actually engaging in a worthwhile discussion about the actual source, or how secular morality actually works in the world.
    I'm willing to debate such a thing. But that's not what THIS thread is about. If you want to concede the OPs position, then I'm happy to change the topic - even in this thread. But changing the topic before the OPs actual argument is settled will not work.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In the end, I think Dio put it most simply in post #22 with:
    "This does beg the question of what we mean by "superior", but if by that we mean a system of morality that provides reliable, sensible results, then I think we do have some insight as to what sort of system might be better than another."
    But I provided a very good and so far completely unrebutted criteria for "superior" - which ever one is correct. In pretty much any conceivable scenario, that which is correct is superior to that which is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Since the criteria for superiority set out by your OP don't actually allow us to determine which is superior - ignoring the glaring issue that the alternatives offered are ill-defined - we have no choice but to establish other criteria, which, I'd argue, society has already done, and has been doing since it had the ability to evaluate things in terms of whether they provide reliable, sensible results.
    You have provided absolutely no valid argument for why we should not accept "correct" as a valid criteria for superior. So no, we don't have to pick different criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We constantly find ourselves in the position of "before the BOOM", always needing to decide what to do based solely on what previously happened and making decisions using rational evaluations of what will ensure the best results according to our goals.
    The only reason that what looks to me to be a straw-man comes up is because you are introducing it.

    My argument is about what kind of information is best. Is it correct information or incorrect information? Getting into the issue of the best way to attain information is not relevant to that issue. While I agree that when coming up with answers, rationality is likely the best method it does not in any way rebut MY argument that correct information is better than incorrect information.

    Bringing up the best method for figuring out how to diffuse a bomb before one attempts to defuse does not change the fact that the best answer is the one that actually succeeds in defusing the bomb regardless of the methodology of attaining the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your failure to accept why this makes your entirely post hoc superiority criteria completely useless is the crux of why your OP is ultimately pointless.
    I don't accept it because it in no way invalidates the OPs position. Your failed attempt to argue that correct information is not superior does not make the OP pointless.

    For those who are interested in debating whether Objective morality is superior to subjective or vice versa, the OP is not pointless. If you don't want to debate that, then I guess you can say that IN YOUR OPINION the OP is pointless. But then why are you bothering to debate the issue? At least I'm spending time on a debate that I find worthy of having.
    Last edited by mican333; October 2nd, 2017 at 12:50 PM.

  11. #271
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How can there be such a thing as subjective morality? Surely you mean subjective preference that you happen to call "good" or "bad"?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You don't get to redefine words to suit your argument.

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

    So yes, when speaking of one's own subjective position, they are indeed referring to what they happen to think is right or wrong and that, BY DEFINITION, is a moral position.
    Let me rephrase; two subjective moral values that oppose each other can't both logically be right. How a subjective value of right is established when no objective/ideal is known is anybodies guess. So how right is determined is on PREFERENCE, not on what is right.

    What you subjectively THINK is right outside of an objective, universal, unchanging standard is NO BETTER than what Kim Jong Un THINKS is right because it is only a preference.

    Ronald Nash had this to say about moral/ethical relativism (paraphrased):

    1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.
    3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?
    4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other.
    5) Morally reforms are not possible.
    6) All choices are equally good.

    Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 343.

    Tim Barnett says about ethical naturalism:
    1. Evolutionary Naturalism Cannot Get an “Ought” from an “Is”
    That is, "Knowledge is what “is” and values are what “ought” to be....The problem stems from trying to deduce a moral duty from a scientific description. Darwinian evolution may be able to describe past behavior, but it lacks the resources to prescribe future behavior."

    2. Evolutionary Morality Keeps Evolving
    Evolution is arbitrary and could have evolved differently; therefore, the same is true of evolutionary morality...Since evolution is a process of change, morality must also change.

    3. Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality Away
    Evolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are fitness directed, not truth-directed.

    4. Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral Beliefs
    On an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. After all, if we hold our moral beliefs because of the fitness conferred by the resulting behavior, then it appears that we would have had those beliefs whether or not they were true. Minimally, this means we could never know whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts.


    https://www.str.org/article/four-pro...y#.WcSYdLpFxZU

    I think both of these Christian philospophers make excellent points.

    You said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"
    Where did you get this quote from?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If one thinks that something is right or wrong, then it is a moral position.
    It is a moral position but opinion does not make something right. What is right must conform to the standard of rightness. If the standard of rightness keeps changing what is right? It become arbitrary. That is what YOU have without an absolute, objective, eternal, unchanging, omniscient being - God.

    Which position on abortion is the true right, the one before Roe vs. Wade or the position after? If there is no ultimate standard it is up in the air - no one knows.
    Was the US legislature right when it decreed gay marriage was wrong or when they decreed it was permissible? Flip a coin. Morality becomes redundant because anything, any belief, can be passed off as morally right.

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; October 2nd, 2017 at 03:55 PM. Reason: a few grammatical mistakes

  12. #272
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Let me rephrase; two subjective moral values that oppose each other can't both logically be right. How a subjective value of right is established when no objective/ideal is known is anybodies guess. So how right is determined is on PREFERENCE, not on what is right.

    What you subjectively THINK is right outside of an objective, universal, unchanging standard is NO BETTER than what Kim Jong Un THINKS is right because it is only a preference.
    That is not necessarily true. How correct my moral viewpoint is entirely dependent on what system one uses to determine the correctness of a moral viewpoint.

    1. If we use my moral viewpoint, then I'm right.
    2. If we use someone else' moral viewpoint, then whether I am right or wrong is up to that person.
    3. If we use the majority viewpoint and most people agree with me (which would be the case), then I'm right.
    4. If we use an objective moral viewpoint, THEN neither Kim or I can be right or wrong.

    And there is nothing forcing us to use the objective moralist viewpoint. Really, it's YOUR choice to continue to look at the rightness or wrongness of subjective morality from an objective moralist viewpoint. So your argument is only as correct as it is proven that there are indeed objective moralist viewpoints and that has not been proven to be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [COLOR="#008000"][B]1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    That is based on the premise that there are truly objective moral viewpoints. If one does not accept that (and since it has not been proven to be true one is free to do that), then they have every right to say that one viewpoint is superior to another.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Tim Barnett says about ethical naturalism:
    [COLOR="#008000"][B]1. Evolutionary Naturalism Cannot Get an “Ought” from an “Is”
    That is, "Knowledge is what “is” and values are what “ought” to be....The problem stems from trying to deduce a moral duty from a scientific description. Darwinian evolution may be able to describe past behavior, but it lacks the resources to prescribe future behavior."
    But that is not at all valid criticism of Darwinism. The theory of gravity likewise cannot prescribe moral future behavior because it's not at theory that concerns itself with morality. It makes no sense to criticize something for not doing that which it has no obligation to do. You might as well criticize a car for not being able to make a cake.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    2. Evolutionary Morality Keeps Evolving
    Evolution is arbitrary and could have evolved differently; therefore, the same is true of evolutionary morality...Since evolution is a process of change, morality must also change.
    Evolution is not arbitrary at all. That's often one of the problems with those criticize evolution - they either don't adequately understand it or are intentionally misrepresenting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    3. Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality Away
    Evolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are fitness directed, not truth-directed.
    That doesn't even make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    4. Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral Beliefs
    On an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. After all, if we hold our moral beliefs because of the fitness conferred by the resulting behavior, then it appears that we would have had those beliefs whether or not they were true. Minimally, this means we could never know whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts.
    But then that forwards the completely unsupported position that are such things as moral facts. And btw, evolution does not directly contradict the position that there are objective morals or God. If there is a God, then God designed the universe and evolution would be one of the things that God designed and the reason that evolution occurs is because God has designed life that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You said:

    "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"

    Where did you get this quote from?
    The Oxford Dictionary.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It is a moral position but opinion does not make something right. What is right must conform to the standard of rightness.
    Of course. And anyone who says that something is morally right or wrong is doing that based on a standard of rightness. If they are speaking subjectively, that standard is either their own or belongs to some other human.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If the standard of rightness keeps changing what is right? It become arbitrary. That is what YOU have without an absolute, objective, eternal, unchanging, omniscient being - God.
    I disagree. There is wide range between a standard that is absolute and a standard that is completely arbitrary. Generally, one who thinks murder is immoral is not able to arbitrarily decide that it's no longer immoral. If the average person comes face to face with a horrific violent crime, they will be repulsed both physically and morally and will have no choice in whether they experience such revulsion so they clearly can't just decide that they are fine with murder.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Which position on abortion is the true right, the one before Roe vs. Wade or the position after? If there is no ultimate standard it is up in the air - no one knows.
    No, if there is no ultimate standard, then NEITHER position is "true right".


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Was the US legislature right when it decreed gay marriage was wrong or when they decreed it was permissible? Flip a coin. Morality becomes redundant because anything, any belief, can be passed off as morally right.
    But my viewpoint on the morality of gay marriage is not based on a coin flip. I have a set of deeply held beliefs that when combined lead me to my position on the appropriateness of banning gay marriage (I choose to not share my beliefs right now as this isn't a debate about gay marriage) and I cannot choose to change my moral beliefs. My beliefs being subjective does not change that at all. The only difference is that I have no external source to compare them to.

    And the reality is NO ONE has a provably correct moral source to compare their beliefs to. People have sources that they THINK provides objective moral viewpoints that they can compare their beliefs to but no one can prove that their source is correct. And if they are wrong, then my beliefs are superior because at least my beliefs are based on something that actually exists - myself.

    So the ONLY way that objective morality is superior to subjective morality is IF there actually is an objective moral source. If there isn't, then all objective moralists are basing their moral beliefs on falsehoods instead of the true source of morality - people.
    Last edited by mican333; October 5th, 2017 at 05:23 PM.

  13. #273
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Let me rephrase; two subjective moral values that oppose each other can't both logically be right. How a subjective value of right is established when no objective/ideal is known is anybodies guess. So how right is determined is on PREFERENCE, not on what is right.

    What you subjectively THINK is right outside of an objective, universal, unchanging standard is NO BETTER than what Kim Jong Un THINKS is right because it is only a preference.

    Ronald Nash had this to say about moral/ethical relativism (paraphrased):

    1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.
    3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?
    4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other.
    5) Morally reforms are not possible.
    6) All choices are equally good.

    Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 343.

    Tim Barnett says about ethical naturalism:
    1. Evolutionary Naturalism Cannot Get an “Ought” from an “Is”
    That is, "Knowledge is what “is” and values are what “ought” to be....The problem stems from trying to deduce a moral duty from a scientific description. Darwinian evolution may be able to describe past behavior, but it lacks the resources to prescribe future behavior."

    2. Evolutionary Morality Keeps Evolving
    Evolution is arbitrary and could have evolved differently; therefore, the same is true of evolutionary morality...Since evolution is a process of change, morality must also change.

    3. Evolutionary Naturalism Explains Morality Away
    Evolution is all about survival of species. This means, on an evolutionary view, moral beliefs are fitness directed, not truth-directed.

    4. Evolutionary Naturalism Undermines All Moral Beliefs
    On an evolutionary view, there is no reason to trust our moral convictions. After all, if we hold our moral beliefs because of the fitness conferred by the resulting behavior, then it appears that we would have had those beliefs whether or not they were true. Minimally, this means we could never know whether our moral beliefs correspond to moral facts.


    https://www.str.org/article/four-pro...y#.WcSYdLpFxZU

    I think both of these Christian philospophers make excellent points.
    Sure, they are great points, but only IF God exists.

  14. #274
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Sure, they are great points, but only IF God exists.
    Yes, they are good points.

    As soon as I get some time I'll lay out the argument for God for you, and hopefully, we can debate the reasonableness of the argument.

    I'm going to address Mican soon (I have another debate to get ready for) but the points Ronald Nash listed are reasonable whether or not God exists.

    1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.
    3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?
    4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other.
    5) Morally reforms are not possible.
    6) All choices are equally good.
    Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 343.

    1) Why is Mican's moral code any better than mine that refutes his? Because he says so or because a majority may support his position? Wars are fought on such disagreements over moral issues.

    A majority supported Hitler. Do you think Hitler was right in his belief about the Aryan race and the elimination of 11 million undesirables? Does human power dictate what is right? Which ones - Kim Jong Un or one of the many dictatorships or oligarchies in the world today?

    2) How do you measure moral progress? Was it right when gay marriage and abortion were taboo in the USA or is it right now? Who gets to decide (a panel of 9 supreme court judges)?

    3) If there is no ultimate standard of right, why strive to be better? Who gets to choose what better is?

    4) How can you criticise what Hitler did as wrong without an ultimate measure? It was right for Hitler, according to the thinking of Mican. Who are you to criticize that?

    "If we use my moral viewpoint, then I'm right." - Mican

    I disagree completely. I know Mican is wrong on many issues in which we disagree, like his position on abortion.

    (Watch his objection)

    You see, the problem with no ultimate standard is that you betray what you really believe when someone challenges you. I'm sure Mican will fight me tooth and claw in trying to establish that he is 'more' right, that his position is more reasonable? If he didn't how is he going to establish that his OPINION is any better than mine? He believes it is his that is BETTER, yet he has no higher authority than his own mind, or subjective like minds. What makes his mind right? BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IT. He will not give an inch. What that means to me is that he doesn't believe in subjective morality. He believes one position is more right than another. He cannot accept an absolute moral measure because he would have to yield to Someone greater than he is and that goes against the validity of his moral view (according to the NT - Romans 1:18-25). It means (according to the Bible account) he is answerable to Someone higher than he is and he will give account. This is an uncomfortable position to accept.

    5) How can one reform be any better than any other without an ultimate measure? Because you or someone else says so?

    6) Don't tell me your choice is any better than mine without the existence of God. I believe some people would fight you to the death on such an issue if they are not Christian and there was no hope for the future.

    Try answering the six questions and see what you come up with and what makes sense.

    Peter

  15. #275
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Yes, they are good points.

    As soon as I get some time I'll lay out the argument for God for you, and hopefully, we can debate the reasonableness of the argument.
    I look forward to it sir

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm going to address Mican soon (I have another debate to get ready for) but the points Ronald Nash listed are reasonable whether or not God exists.

    Good beans, cause near as I can tell, he needs a good talkin too and he ain't listening to me
    (sorry Mican, I just could not resist the temptation, I will try to be good

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.
    3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?
    4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other.
    5) Morally reforms are not possible.
    6) All choices are equally good.
    Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 343.

    Ok, lets say for sake of this conversation, I agree with all six points.
    Now we can say that an objective system is "better".
    Now what?
    That still does not mean an objective system exists???
    How do we make the leap from "it's better" to it exists and we can chose it if we like?

  16. #276
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    PGA,

    You are continuously begging the question by operating on the unsupported premise that morality IS objective. Since that has not been supported, it is not an accepted premise and should not be argued as if it indeed true.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) No moral code can be better than another. Thus, there are no grounds to criticize others.
    2) No such thing as moral progress. Nothing is transcendent and objective to judge what is an improvement.
    3) Why strive to be better if moral progress is impossible?
    4) Accepting ethical relativism means no human being lives better morally than any other.
    5) Morally reforms are not possible.
    6) All choices are equally good.
    Again, ALL of these points are based on the viewpoint from objective morality. If we view them from the perspective of subjective morality, they aren't true at all. I can subjectively criticize others and subjectively believe that moral progress occurs (if it looks like moral progress to me, then there's moral progress from the subjective perspective).


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why is Mican's moral code any better than mine that refutes his? Because he says so or because a majority may support his position? Wars are fought on such disagreements over moral issues.
    And wars are fought over moral disagreements, true. But then objective morality doesn't fix this problem. I assume you hold that the Christian moral viewpoint is objectively correct and yet Christians have gone to war to defend their beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    2) How do you measure moral progress? Was it right when gay marriage and abortion were taboo in the USA or is it right now? Who gets to decide (a panel of 9 supreme court judges)?
    The court system and the legislature gets to decide what the laws are but they don't get to decide what is moral.

    And if there is no objective source of morality, then people can decide for themselves what is moral.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    3) If there is no ultimate standard of right, why strive to be better? Who gets to choose what better is?
    Again, that's a question not an argument. Obviously moral standards exist and if subjective morality is all that exists (and no one has proven that that is not the case), then people strive to be better based on subjective viewpoints of right and wrong. A parent still teaches his child to be a better person.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    4) How can you criticise what Hitler did as wrong without an ultimate measure?
    By using a subjective standard for criticism, of course. There's no reason why one cannot do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It was right for Hitler, according to the thinking of Mican.
    That's ridiculous. My subjective viewpoint is that Hitler was wrong, not right. And if Hitler is objectively wrong, then my subjective viewpoint aligns with objective moral truth and therefor is right.

    In fact, the ONLY way I could be wrong is if Hitler's actions were objectively right. THEN I would be going against an objectively moral correct viewpoint.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I disagree completely. I know Mican is wrong on many issues in which we disagree, like his position on abortion.
    Of course my argument was presented from the subjective perspective. And you can't say that my viewpoint is objectively incorrect until you:
    1. Prove objective morality exists
    2. Prove that a position that contradicts my moral viewpoint is objectively correct.

    Until you succeed in doing both of those things, your argument that I'm wrong in any of my moral viewpoints fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You see, the problem with no ultimate standard is that you betray what you really believe when someone challenges you. I'm sure Mican will fight me tooth and claw in trying to establish that he is 'more' right, that his position is more reasonable? If he didn't how is he going to establish that his OPINION is any better than mine? He believes it is his that is BETTER, yet he has no higher authority than his own mind, or subjective like minds. What makes his mind right? BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IT. He will not give an inch. What that means to me is that he doesn't believe in subjective morality. He believes one position is more right than another. He cannot accept an absolute moral measure because he would have to yield to Someone greater than he is and that goes against the validity of his moral view
    That's just a bunch of unsupported assumptions. I could pull the same trick on you and say, with equal support (which is none at all) that you can't handle the fact that morality is up to the individual and therefore need to believe in an external moral source so morality makes sense to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    5) How can one reform be any better than any other without an ultimate measure? Because you or someone else says so?
    Right. If there is no objective standard, then all we have are personal standards. And one can use a personal standard in determining right and wrong. I understand that it's not as "solid" as an external objective standard but then if such an external standard does not exist, then personal standards is all we have. If that's true, then complaining about is just complaint about reality. You can complain about reality but it doesn't change reality.
    Last edited by mican333; October 11th, 2017 at 07:27 PM.

 

 
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14

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
  •