I ask because this was said:
Apparently, I am that "new member".
Now, I do not agree with the claim, and I've explained why before. To explain it again:
So if you think "God's law" just amounts to "God's commands", and you think that morality just amounts to God's law, then congrulations: you're a moral subjectivist, and on your position morality is subjective.
Given this, why should I accept the above poster's claim otherwise?
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Now, I do not agree with the claim, and I've explained why before. To explain it again:
Subjectivism results from making moral statements true or false in virtue of some mind's (or minds') views, such as attitudes, opinions, etc., (with an exception in the context of informed consent, which I won't go into here). So it would be subjectivism to claim that moral statements are true in virtue of something like God's command that one not rape, since God's commands express God's attitude.
Furthermore, on the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one point of view and subjective from another point of view. For example, it would make no sense to claim that it's objective from my point of view and subjective from God's point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter.
To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any perspective. And it depends on X's view, then it depends on X's view from anyone's perspective. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter or subjectively false simpliciter because it's true or false in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. And that's the case regardless of whether some theists make empty appeals to how "God's law would still be objective to mankind".
That's why divine command theory is recognized as a form of moral subjectivism: because it makes moral statements true or false in virtue of God's attitudes, as expressed in God's commands. This point is so apparent that's it's even on Wikipedia, though other, more reputable sources make much the same point:
Furthermore, on the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one point of view and subjective from another point of view. For example, it would make no sense to claim that it's objective from my point of view and subjective from God's point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter.
To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any perspective. And it depends on X's view, then it depends on X's view from anyone's perspective. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter or subjectively false simpliciter because it's true or false in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. And that's the case regardless of whether some theists make empty appeals to how "God's law would still be objective to mankind".
That's why divine command theory is recognized as a form of moral subjectivism: because it makes moral statements true or false in virtue of God's attitudes, as expressed in God's commands. This point is so apparent that's it's even on Wikipedia, though other, more reputable sources make much the same point:
So if you think "God's law" just amounts to "God's commands", and you think that morality just amounts to God's law, then congrulations: you're a moral subjectivist, and on your position morality is subjective.
Given this, why should I accept the above poster's claim otherwise?
Comment