Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    YOu are not using those words, Jim - but that is what most of your arguments reduce to - when you look at them carefully.
    I know you're not saying I'm literally writing those words. I'm saying that my arguments don't reduce to that phrase. My arguments are saying that subjectivism cannot be right because they entail these other absurd consequences, such as the foreclosing of the possibility of moral fallibility or moral disagreement that make sense.



    So first, appealing to a majority doesn't make your case. A preponderance of ethicists are objectivists as well; it doesn't make them right. A preponderance of the planet believe in a geocentric universe. It didn't make them right either. "Truth" is not determine by vote.
    It didn't say it made my case. I was citing a feature that is overwhelmingly accepted as an essential feature of morality even by non-realists. How else do you go about defining philosophical terms? If I want to argue about philosophical term X which is generally defined as having essential properties A and B in terms of my new philosophical theory T which does not allow for properties A and B, then I cannot simply re-define X as lacking A and B without strong independent arguments supporting the redefinition. And this is precisely what you have failed to do.


    Of course there is a "public truth" associated with Stalin: it is the collective view of the public. If an individual finds Stalin's actions immoral, they are (subjectively) immoral to that person. If the members of a society collectively find Stalin's actions immoral, then they are (subjectively) immoral to that society. What there is not is some abstract, objectively true for ALL people, evaluation of Stalin's actions. There is no "objectively true" moral norm against which to assess individual moral norms. There are simply a wide variety of individual voices, and a significant number of documented moral norms from a variety of cultures, societies, religions, etc., each of them subjective to the group that created it.
    I still don't think you get the argument. The collective opinion of the society is a distraction in this case because for the subjectivist the "right-making feature" of anything, an action, someone's character, etc, is an individual person's opinion. So there is no "public truth" about Stalin's character at the collective level any more than there is at the individual level. There is no objective moral truth about Stalin. Period. There are only subjective individual opinions. So when you and I disagree about whether Stalin was a morally good person or not, we cannot be disagreeing about any fact of the matter that is publicly commonly accessible to both of us in the same way. You are discussing your subjectivity. I am discussing my subjectivity. We are not having, we cannot have a moral disagreement on subjectivism.



    There is a real pizza that really interacted with taste buds. There was a real Stalin that really interacted with people and really committed particular acts with particular consequences. And there is no "guaranteed" way to adjudicate their disagreement for either situation. There are ways to influence someone to like pizza - but they are not guaranteed to be successful. There are ways to influence someone to evaluate Stalin differently than they currently do - but they are not guaranteed to be successful.

    Why? Because there is no objective frame of reference to which all moral codes "ought" to align. None has ever been shown to exist. No one can make the case that one even MUST exist. You have not done so once since we started. Every challenge I have put forward to you - any one of which would defeat my position with ONE example, you have failed to provide even that one example.
    That's all question-begging again. You can talk to someone about Stalin, about the underlying moral principles involved, about human rights and justice, the veil of ignorance, you can use thought experiments. All of your points assume the conclusion you want to reach which is what seems to be your go-to move.

    Is there any world in which torturing children for amusement would be morally acceptable?

    When stripped right down to it, you are arguing that morality cannot be subjective because then it would lack a characteristic that can only be provided by being objective. First, you have not shown that subjective morality cannot have that characteristic. You have merely shown that subjective morality may not have that characteristic. Indeed, moral disagreement is still possible, but resolution of that disagreement is not guaranteed. Second, that argument reduces to what I have been saying all along: it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective - which is not an argument.
    You apparently don't know much about ethics then. There are many many varieties and schools of ethics. Most teleologists would say that moral disagreement would be an essential feature. I have not shown that subjective morality in general lacks the possibility of moral disagreement, which only strengthens the case that I am NOT begging the question. I am only showing that YOUR version of it, the one I'm familiar with, cuts off even the possibility of moral disagreement.
    Last edited by Jim B.; 08-30-2019, 06:21 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Jim -

      I'm not sure where you want to go with "deeper," but perhaps it might be worth taking a moment to define terms. You've been tossing "descriptive" and "normative" around in various posts, suggesting that I have a tendency to go back and forth between the two. Here is how I understand and use these terms:

      DESCRIPTIVE: a claim that asserts that such-and-such IS the case.
      NORMATIVE: a claim that asserts that such-and-such OUGHT to be the case.

      Descriptive is fairly straightforward, and I think we both use it consistently. "Normative" is more complex. I will explain how I use the term.

      When it comes to specific moral principles (e.g., wanton killing is wrong), these principles can be applied to past or future action (if you think about it, the present is an illusion and I do not include it here). When such a principle is applied to a past action, it is largely descriptive (the action has happened - and we are simply categorizing it). When it is applied to a future action, it can be either. We can be saying, "if you do this, it will be wrong," or we can be saying "you ought do (or not do) X." That is what moralizers do: assess the morality of action in the past or possible action in the future. When we are dealing with the future, and we are expressing an "ought," then morality becomes prescriptive (i.e., it identifies the recommended or "right" course of action).

      When it comes to moral ontology, we can only be descriptive. We are talking about the nature of morality itself. We are not saying "morality ought to be X or Y." We are saying "morality is X or Y." You are saying that morality IS rooted in objective truths, and I am saying that morality IS rooted in subjective truths only. It does not matter what either of us WANTS it to be, or thinks it OUGHT to be. What matters is what it actually, objectively, IS.

      Would you disagree with any of this?
      I would only say that morality IS normative/prescriptive by its nature, or it has a normative/prescriptive dimension. There is an irreducible "oughtness" to morality, IMO. People who tend to look at it only from a scientific perspective, say as a cultural anthropologist, psychologist, neuro-scientist, would tend to want to reduce the prescriptive dimension to the descriptive one.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Tass, if you say I have no evidence for God I have every right to ask what you mean by evidence. Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience? If you have no idea what you mean by evidence then we are dead in the water.
        Given you claim that objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation you need to establish that the source of this “objective morality”, God, actually exists.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          I know you're not saying I'm literally writing those words. I'm saying that my arguments don't reduce to that phrase. My arguments are saying that subjectivism cannot be right because they entail these other absurd consequences, such as the foreclosing of the possibility of moral fallibility or moral disagreement that make sense.
          Except it doesn't do that. It doesn't foreclose on these things - it simply does not permit them in an objective sense. But it DOES permit them in a subjective sense...which is why your argument reduces as I have suggested.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          It didn't say it made my case. I was citing a feature that is overwhelmingly accepted as an essential feature of morality even by non-realists.
          And I am saying that the number of people accepting this "essential feature" doesn't make it essential.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          How else do you go about defining philosophical terms? If I want to argue about philosophical term X which is generally defined as having essential properties A and B in terms of my new philosophical theory T which does not allow for properties A and B, then I cannot simply re-define X as lacking A and B without strong independent arguments supporting the redefinition. And this is precisely what you have failed to do.
          So first, we are talking about the nature of morality - which we're not going to arrive at simply by defining terms the way we wish to. Second, just what term do you think I have "redefined?"

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          I still don't think you get the argument. The collective opinion of the society is a distraction in this case because for the subjectivist the "right-making feature" of anything, an action, someone's character, etc, is an individual person's opinion. So there is no "public truth" about Stalin's character at the collective level any more than there is at the individual level. There is no objective moral truth about Stalin. Period. There are only subjective individual opinions. So when you and I disagree about whether Stalin was a morally good person or not, we cannot be disagreeing about any fact of the matter that is publicly commonly accessible to both of us in the same way. You are discussing your subjectivity. I am discussing my subjectivity. We are not having, we cannot have a moral disagreement on subjectivism.
          The heart of your statement is highlighted above. Note that what it objects to is the absence of an "objective moral truth." I have never said or claimed that subjective morality has an objective moral truth. Indeed, that is the very nature of morality. This is exactly what I mean when I say your arguments reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective.

          Subjective morality has no access to objective moral truths - by definition.
          Noting that this is the case is not an argument against subjective morality - it is a restatement of the definition of the term "subjective morality."

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          That's all question-begging again.
          Actually - it's not. It is a fact that every challenge I have put forward to you to identify one moral principle that is NOT rooted in a subjectively arrived cherishing/valuing has been met with either silence, or a list of vague generalities, which I have pointed out each and every time. This has been my experience not only with you, but with every other person I have discussed this issue with for the last three decades. As I have noted, a subjective reality cannot be "proven" logically. I cannot "prove" to you that what we value we value subjectively. I cannot "prove" to you that what we cherish we cherish subjectively. I likewise cannot "prove" to you that what we consider moral/immoral we consider moral/immoral subjectively. I can only point you to the evidence that convinces me, and challenge you to show your objective claim to be true. An objective reality/truth SHOULD be demonstrable/provable in some fashion, but for three decades now, crickets.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          You can talk to someone about Stalin, about the underlying moral principles involved, about human rights and justice, the veil of ignorance, you can use thought experiments. All of your points assume the conclusion you want to reach which is what seems to be your go-to move.
          Jim - all of my points are based in my experience as a person, my observation of the people around me, and my understanding of society and groups. As I said - I didn't start out as a subjectivist - I ended up there because the pieces fit. Whether or not you accept that is not something I can control.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Is there any world in which torturing children for amusement would be morally acceptable?
          In a world populated by people who cherish pleasure above life, and who find pleasure in torturing children, torturing children would be seen as morally acceptable. Likewise, slavery has been defended as "morally acceptable." So has torturing apostates to save their souls. Throughout human history, we have examples of societies and groups who hold moral positions that most of the rest of us consider horrendous.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          You apparently don't know much about ethics then. There are many many varieties and schools of ethics. Most teleologists would say that moral disagreement would be an essential feature. I have not shown that subjective morality in general lacks the possibility of moral disagreement, which only strengthens the case that I am NOT begging the question. I am only showing that YOUR version of it, the one I'm familiar with, cuts off even the possibility of moral disagreement.
          Based on what I cherish/value, and reasoning from that, I subjectively conclude that same-sex intimacy is morally neutral, subject to the same boundaries as opposite-sex intimacy.
          Based on what he cherishes/values, and reasoning from that, Seer subjectively concludes that same sex intimacy is always and everywhere immoral.

          We have moral disagreement. We hold opposing moral views. If our views are rooted in valuing/cherishing differently (which they are), we can attempt to align our moral disagreement by attempting to influence one another as to what we value/cherish. If what we value/cherish is already aligned and we are both using reason to derive our moral principles from that basis, then it is likely that one of us has made an error in reasoning from what we value/cherish to the resulting moral principle. We can potentially resolve our moral disagreement by ferreting out the errant logic. If we cannot align what we value, or at least one of us does not use reason to arrive at our moral position, or if we are using reason and cannot identify the logical flaw, then we will not resolve the moral disagreement. We will then resort to ignore (for minor issues), isolate/separate (for more significant issues), and/or contend (for the most serious issues). Which we use will be subjectively determined because what we consider minor, more significant, or most serious is subjectively determined.

          Moral disagreement exists in a subjective moral world - and resolution is possible in a subjectively moral world. It simply is not assured.

          Now - look at the objective side. You have competing moral frameworks all held up to be THE "objective moral truth." There is no mechanism by which anyone can actually demonstrate that any of these is indeed THE objective moral truth, and no mechanism by which anyone can even demonstrate that there IS an objective moral truth. When two such frameworks collide - there is no mechanism for resolving the issue. There is no effective difference between the two.

          I have come to believe that this claim to "objective moral truth" is nothing more than a means by which one group can insist that it has THE TRUTH and require all others to be subject to it. It's not about TRUTH - it's about POWER. And when that so-called truth is then projected on a supreme being (as it often is), it is about ULTIMATE POWER.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            I would only say that morality IS normative/prescriptive by its nature, or it has a normative/prescriptive dimension. There is an irreducible "oughtness" to morality, IMO. People who tend to look at it only from a scientific perspective, say as a cultural anthropologist, psychologist, neuro-scientist, would tend to want to reduce the prescriptive dimension to the descriptive one.
            I would say that if your use of "normative" here is about the ontological nature of morality - you just begged the question very badly. There is no "ought" to the ontological question. Morality is what it is. I believe it is a subjective exercise that derives subjective truths. You believe it is rooted in objective truths. It cannot be both - so one of us is wrong. There is no "ought" here. There is merely an attempt to uncover what is.

            If we are talking about the moral principles themselves, then morality is about "ought" when it concerns decisions about future/pending actions. That is the prescriptive nature of morality. This is no less true in a subjective moral world I believe exists than the objective moral world you believe exists.

            ETA: It dawns on me that past action may also be "ought" in nature - if we are not attempting to classify the action that occurred, but rather to articulate what we believe ought to have occurred. The difference is you cannot prescript the past.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Given you claim that objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation you need to establish that the source of this “objective morality”, God, actually exists.
              Tass, I'm still trying to find out what you mean by evidence: Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Except it doesn't do that. It doesn't foreclose on these things - it simply does not permit them in an objective sense. But it DOES permit them in a subjective sense...which is why your argument reduces as I have suggested.
                Please explain how it can permit moral disagreement or moral fallibility. I have yet to see any solid evidence that you understand either argument.



                And I am saying that the number of people accepting this "essential feature" doesn't make it essential.
                It's not an argumentum ad populum, if that's what you mean. It's analogous to the debate over the meaning of the word "pain." Kripke said there was a 'rigid designator' for pain, which was the way it felt, the qualia. Some eliminativists and others contend that this feature is not essential to "pain." I think it's pretty clear that that's the default position, that the quale is essnetial, barring an independent argument otherwise.



                So first, we are talking about the nature of morality - which we're not going to arrive at simply by defining terms the way we wish to. Second, just what term do you think I have "redefined?"
                "Morality" and "Ethics"



                The heart of your statement is highlighted above. Note that what it objects to is the absence of an "objective moral truth." I have never said or claimed that subjective morality has an objective moral truth. Indeed, that is the very nature of morality. This is exactly what I mean when I say your arguments reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective.
                No. This is the heart of our disagreement, and I'm glad you highlighted what you did because maybe it will help clarify things. That is not the heart of my statement. I am not stating that point as my conclusion but rather as my premise that BECAUSE for you there is no objective moral truth about Stalin, then for you and me to 'disagree' about Stalin's moral worth is like us disagreeing about Zeus's eye color or Pan's favorite fruit. There's nothing objective there to disagree about. I am not objecting to that. I am objecting to what follows from that: namely that then there can be no moral disagreement, and morality, even by your own characterization, involves the possibility of disagreement. You and I cannot disagree about a moral issue because there is no moral issue there to disagree over, according to your own theory. This is what you say about your own theory. I am only repeating what you say about it. I am not drawing any conclusions about it. The phrase you highlighted is a tenet of subjectivism you should agree with. It should not even be controversial to you. And it is one of my premises, not a conclusion.

                Subjective morality has no access to objective moral truths - by definition.
                Noting that this is the case is not an argument against subjective morality - it is a restatement of the definition of the term "subjective morality."
                YEs, that's why it's a premise, not a conclusion.



                Actually - it's not. It is a fact that every challenge I have put forward to you to identify one moral principle that is NOT rooted in a subjectively arrived cherishing/valuing has been met with either silence, or a list of vague generalities, which I have pointed out each and every time. This has been my experience not only with you, but with every other person I have discussed this issue with for the last three decades. As I have noted, a subjective reality cannot be "proven" logically. I cannot "prove" to you that what we value we value subjectively. I cannot "prove" to you that what we cherish we cherish subjectively. I likewise cannot "prove" to you that what we consider moral/immoral we consider moral/immoral subjectively. I can only point you to the evidence that convinces me, and challenge you to show your objective claim to be true. An objective reality/truth SHOULD be demonstrable/provable in some fashion, but for three decades now, crickets.
                Of course what we cherish and value, we cherish and value subjectively. But that doesn't establish that what we ought to cherish and value, we ought to cherish and value subjectively. It all depends on how you frame the issue and what kind of evidence you find admissable and convincing. It all goes back to one's pre-suppositions. We are always subject to our prior ontological and metaphysical commitments.

                The distinct impression of moral progress that one doesn't see anywhere else except where some objective reality is being encountered as in physical reality, though not unimpeachable proof, is evidence of an objective framework. The nature of moral thought is evidence, again not unimpeachable, but evidence, of the plausibility of something real, iehow qualitatively different in nature moral thought and categories are than aesthetic and pragmatic thought. And the great uniformity of moral systems and moral principles throughout the world, despite the tremendous pressures for divergence due to differing culutural and local/historical factors and most importantly due to wide divergences in nonmoral beliefs. And lastly, the unacceptable consequences that appear to follow from subjectivism lend even greater plausibility to some sort of objective nature to morality.

                In a world populated by people who cherish pleasure above life, and who find pleasure in torturing children, torturing children would be seen as morally acceptable. Likewise, slavery has been defended as "morally acceptable." So has torturing apostates to save their souls. Throughout human history, we have examples of societies and groups who hold moral positions that most of the rest of us consider horrendous.
                Yes, but you were the one saying that the meaning of a term doesn't depend on what a majority of people think. What does any of this matter? It's just the same old "Diversity Thesis " Argument all over again! I am saying that there is an objective reason to want to stop the torturing of children for amusement in any world. There is an objective reason for me to want to stop my headache in any world. There are objective reasons for some actions. There is an objective reason to stop needless suffering. It's not like there's some occult Platonic entity in the Platonic realm. It's just a plain old reason to do something. If a baby is in a stroller and it's rolling into traffic, and I can safely grab it without endangering anybody else, I have an objective reason to do it. It's not objective like a mathematical theorem. It's objective like we talked about colors being. as in not depending on my own subjective opinions. I'm not that important. Why should my own subjective opinion be the locus of kids being tortured or not? The locus should be the kids, the ending of the suffering. To focus on me seems incredibly self-involved and ego-centered. Why? Everything I do is tied at the level of psychological motivation to my subjective viewpoint as a matter of necessity, but why does that entail an ethical necessity as well?
                Last edited by Jim B.; 08-31-2019, 08:23 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                  Based on what I cherish/value, and reasoning from that, I subjectively conclude that same-sex intimacy is morally neutral, subject to the same boundaries as opposite-sex intimacy.
                  Based on what he cherishes/values, and reasoning from that, Seer subjectively concludes that same sex intimacy is always and everywhere immoral.

                  We have moral disagreement. We hold opposing moral views. If our views are rooted in valuing/cherishing differently (which they are), we can attempt to align our moral disagreement by attempting to influence one another as to what we value/cherish. If what we value/cherish is already aligned and we are both using reason to derive our moral principles from that basis, then it is likely that one of us has made an error in reasoning from what we value/cherish to the resulting moral principle. We can potentially resolve our moral disagreement by ferreting out the errant logic. If we cannot align what we value, or at least one of us does not use reason to arrive at our moral position, or if we are using reason and cannot identify the logical flaw, then we will not resolve the moral disagreement. We will then resort to ignore (for minor issues), isolate/separate (for more significant issues), and/or contend (for the most serious issues). Which we use will be subjectively determined because what we consider minor, more significant, or most serious is subjectively determined.

                  Moral disagreement exists in a subjective moral world - and resolution is possible in a subjectively moral world. It simply is not assured.

                  Now - look at the objective side. You have competing moral frameworks all held up to be THE "objective moral truth." There is no mechanism by which anyone can actually demonstrate that any of these is indeed THE objective moral truth, and no mechanism by which anyone can even demonstrate that there IS an objective moral truth. When two such frameworks collide - there is no mechanism for resolving the issue. There is no effective difference between the two.

                  I have come to believe that this claim to "objective moral truth" is nothing more than a means by which one group can insist that it has THE TRUTH and require all others to be subject to it. It's not about TRUTH - it's about POWER. And when that so-called truth is then projected on a supreme being (as it often is), it is about ULTIMATE POWER.
                  So your argument boils down to "Moral beliefs differ and change, therefore they cannot be objective." But three are many other reasons why moral beliefs differ and change other than the fact of not being objective. You and Seer differ over same-sex intimacy. That fact does not preclude the possibility that one of you MAY be right and one of you MAY be wrong. People differ about physical truths and social truths, but the mere fact of difference of opinion doesn't establish that there is no fact of the matter. Of course, if there are truths about morality, they would not be like physical truths and the method of discovery and testing would be different as well. Reasons for doing things are not separate from us the way physical and social truths are. The objective badness of suffering isn't some mysterious extra property that all suffering has, but just the fact that there is reason for anyone capable of viewing the world objectively to want to stop it.

                  When you talk about power, it sounds like you're talking about absolutism, jot objectivism, ie the idea that "We have the code, we have absolute truth once and for all and you don't." Objectivism is more like the idea of physical truth, although the analogy has its limits, as I noted above. It is like physical truths in that there is a norm of physical reality that we as humans are trying to fit our knowledge to, even though we know our knowledge is always incomplete and provisional and will always be so. But both morality and physical truth have a rough idea of 'progress' in that we are pretty sure that our idea of the physical universe is more 'adequate' today than it was 5000 years ago, and wil be more adequate in the future given similar scientific conditions, with some allowance for leeway in the meaning of 'adequate.'

                  If you think about it, relativism is also prey to power dynamics, especially cultural relativism, where there is no means for reasonable adjudication between or across groups. That leaves open the only avenue available.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Please explain how it can permit moral disagreement or moral fallibility. I have yet to see any solid evidence that you understand either argument.
                    I have previously explained both. Moral disagreement in my previous post. Moral fallibility in this one.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    It's not an argumentum ad populum, if that's what you mean. It's analogous to the debate over the meaning of the word "pain." Kripke said there was a 'rigid designator' for pain, which was the way it felt, the qualia. Some eliminativists and others contend that this feature is not essential to "pain." I think it's pretty clear that that's the default position, that the quale is essnetial, barring an independent argument otherwise.
                    So it's not an argument ad populum - but it is an argument ad populum? In any event, we're on another sidetrack. I have never suggested that moral disagreement is not part of the moral world. The disagreement simply arises subjectively and is reconciled (if it can be) subjectively. YOU seem to want to only accept "moral disagreement" if it falls along "objective" lines, which essentially has you begging the question.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    "Morality" and "Ethics"
                    So I would subscribe to any of these definitions of "morality"
                    - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
                    - a doctrine or system of moral conduct

                    The philosophical sources offer these:
                    - descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
                    - normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

                    The normative one is where you and I cross swords. As written here, the definition presumes an objective model for morality, so I reject the definition or the possibility of this definition being useful. There is no code of conduct that would be put forward by "all rational persons."

                    But I had to admit that I was amused to find this one in my dictionary search: "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society." Sounds subjective to me!

                    As for ethics: I would subscribe to any of the following:

                    - moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
                    - the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles
                    - the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
                    - a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

                    I also accept the general definition that ethics is about codes of conduct imposed/required from without (i.e., by groups, societies, etc.) while morality is about the individual.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    No. This is the heart of our disagreement, and I'm glad you highlighted what you did because maybe it will help clarify things. That is not the heart of my statement. I am not stating that point as my conclusion but rather as my premise that BECAUSE for you there is no objective moral truth about Stalin, then for you and me to 'disagree' about Stalin's moral worth is like us disagreeing about Zeus's eye color or Pan's favorite fruit. There's nothing objective there to disagree about. I am not objecting to that. I am objecting to what follows from that: namely that then there can be no moral disagreement, and morality, even by your own characterization, involves the possibility of disagreement. You and I cannot disagree about a moral issue because there is no moral issue there to disagree over, according to your own theory. This is what you say about your own theory. I am only repeating what you say about it. I am not drawing any conclusions about it. The phrase you highlighted is a tenet of subjectivism you should agree with. It should not even be controversial to you. And it is one of my premises, not a conclusion.
                    And I have repeatedly shown there CAN be moral disagreement - but it is disagreement over subjectively arrived at moral principles.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    YEs, that's why it's a premise, not a conclusion.
                    I will accept that clarification. But it does your argument no good to ignore the responses concerning moral disagreement.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Of course what we cherish and value, we cherish and value subjectively. But that doesn't establish that what we ought to cherish and value, we ought to cherish and value subjectively. It all depends on how you frame the issue and what kind of evidence you find admissable and convincing. It all goes back to one's pre-suppositions. We are always subject to our prior ontological and metaphysical commitments.
                    There is no "ought" to what we cherish/value. You are, again, assuming your conclusion. What we cherish/value is arrived at via a variety of sources. Each of us wishes that everyone valued/cherished as we do, because it would increase the probability that what we value/cherish would be further protected by the actions of the groups/societies of which we are members. You are adding "ought" where it cannot be shown to exist.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    The distinct impression of moral progress that one doesn't see anywhere else except where some objective reality is being encountered as in physical reality, though not unimpeachable proof, is evidence of an objective framework.
                    No - it's not. We perceive "moral progress" in so far as we perceive greater and greater alignment to our own moral precepts. The experience is not unlike evolution. Evolution does not "progress" to a fixed goal. Evolution simply selects for the characteristics that will best ensure survivability, in the context of a given environment. Change the environment, and you change the course of evolution for the species within that environment. But we have a sense of "progress" in evolution with ourselves as the pinnacle of that progress, despite the fact that we have no idea if the characteristics we possess (i.e., sentience) have any long-term survivability value. The sense of "moral progress" we experience is due to the fact that how humanity values/cherishes has changed over time, and how we value/cherish today is more likely to be protected by today's social moral norms than those of society 200 years ago. Of course, that's true for some of us. If you ask around here, society is heading to hell in a handbasket (TI) specifically because those vintage moral norms have been largely abandoned by modern society.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    The nature of moral thought is evidence, again not unimpeachable, but evidence, of the plausibility of something real, iehow qualitatively different in nature moral thought and categories are than aesthetic and pragmatic thought.
                    Or it's evidence of the indoctrination of multiple millenia of "objective morality" as the normal model taught by religions and societies.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    And the great uniformity of moral systems and moral principles throughout the world, despite the tremendous pressures for divergence due to differing culutural and local/historical factors and most importantly due to wide divergences in nonmoral beliefs.
                    Or it's evidence of the similarities human share (life, mammal, sentience, earth, etc.) that lead us to value/cherish similarly.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    And lastly, the unacceptable consequences that appear to follow from subjectivism lend even greater plausibility to some sort of objective nature to morality.
                    Here I have to say you have utterly failed to show "unacceptable consequences." I have responded to each you have presented and shown how you are simply assuming your conclusion or trapped in "objective" thinking, ignoring the subjective variants. You just seem to skate past them with little no response, or simply repeat what you said previously as if I had not responded. It's an odd way to conduct an examination of the issue.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Yes, but you were the one saying that the meaning of a term doesn't depend on what a majority of people think.
                    Ummm....no. The meaning of a term pretty much always depends on what the majority of people think. That's how language works. What I said was that the truth of a proposition is not determined by the majority. It is determined solely by its alignment to reality. It does not matter how many people think "the earth is at the center of the universe," the proposition is false if the earth is not actually at the center of the universe. However, in order to HAVE that discussion and articulate that proposition, we all have to agree on the meaning of the words in the proposition.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    What does any of this matter?
                    I have no idea what "this" is in that sentence.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    It's just the same old "Diversity Thesis " Argument all over again!
                    No. The Diversity Thesis argument is equally applicable to a subjective or objective moral of morality, as I noted in my previous post. Our difference concerns how moral principles arise and what accounts for the differences as well as the significant similarity for major components of moral codes through the ages.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I am saying that there is an objective reason to want to stop the torturing of children for amusement in any world. There is an objective reason for me to want to stop my headache in any world. There are objective reasons for some actions. There is an objective reason to stop needless suffering. It's not like there's some occult Platonic entity in the Platonic realm. It's just a plain old reason to do something. If a baby is in a stroller and it's rolling into traffic, and I can safely grab it without endangering anybody else, I have an objective reason to do it. It's not objective like a mathematical theorem. It's objective like we talked about colors being. as in not depending on my own subjective opinions. I'm not that important.
                    Feel free to articulate these objective reasons in such a way as they are completely divorced from subjective valuing/cherishing and reasoning therefrom. I have been asking you to do this for some time now.

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Why should my own subjective opinion be the locus of kids being tortured or not? The locus should be the kids, the ending of the suffering. To focus on me seems incredibly self-involved and ego-centered. Why?
                    You are asking a question without an answer. There is no "should" here. There is only "what is."

                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Everything I do is tied at the level of psychological motivation to my subjective viewpoint as a matter of necessity, but why does that entail an ethical necessity as well?
                    So this is a remarkable acknowledgement. The question you have to ask yourself is, if "everything I do is tied at the level of psychological motivation to my subjective viewpoint as a matter of necessity," how then can you make a case for morality being excluded from this "everything?" It sounds like special pleading to me, and I have not seen a justification for it. That is why I accept this statement from you and take it to its logical conclusion: it includes the worlds of morality and ethics.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      So your argument boils down to "Moral beliefs differ and change, therefore they cannot be objective."
                      No. Difference can arise in either a subjective or objective moral framework. If there were such a thing as an objectively "true" or "correct" moral framework, difference in individual and social frameworks could arise simply through misunderstanding of the objective framework. The heart of the argument is that what we find moral is directly linked to what we cherish/value. Take any moral principle, and if I ask you why that action is moral or immoral, and I keep pressing, you will eventually arrive at, "because I value X." You would probably say "because X has value," but we disagree on the idea that a thing can have "intrinsic" value.

                      And what we value and the metric by which we measure it is subjectively determined.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      But three are many other reasons why moral beliefs differ and change other than the fact of not being objective. You and Seer differ over same-sex intimacy. That fact does not preclude the possibility that one of you MAY be right and one of you MAY be wrong. People differ about physical truths and social truths, but the mere fact of difference of opinion doesn't establish that there is no fact of the matter. Of course, if there are truths about morality, they would not be like physical truths and the method of discovery and testing would be different as well. Reasons for doing things are not separate from us the way physical and social truths are. The objective badness of suffering isn't some mysterious extra property that all suffering has, but just the fact that there is reason for anyone capable of viewing the world objectively to want to stop it.
                      See above. (yes, I know - we all should "see above." I have to admit I found that response deliciously witty!)

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      When you talk about power, it sounds like you're talking about absolutism, jot objectivism, ie the idea that "We have the code, we have absolute truth once and for all and you don't." Objectivism is more like the idea of physical truth, although the analogy has its limits, as I noted above. It is like physical truths in that there is a norm of physical reality that we as humans are trying to fit our knowledge to, even though we know our knowledge is always incomplete and provisional and will always be so. But both morality and physical truth have a rough idea of 'progress' in that we are pretty sure that our idea of the physical universe is more 'adequate' today than it was 5000 years ago, and wil be more adequate in the future given similar scientific conditions, with some allowance for leeway in the meaning of 'adequate.'
                      I have been trying to keep the discussion to "objective" vs. subjective, but I also believe there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral truth simply because we are not "absolute" beings. If Seer could demonstrate that his god actually exists, and actually is unchanging, then presumably this being's moral code would be the only example of an "absolute moral framework" in existence. That would not keep it from being subjective, of course.

                      My comment about power actually took us on a bit of a tangent and we should probably bookmark it for another discussion.

                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      If you think about it, relativism is also prey to power dynamics, especially cultural relativism, where there is no means for reasonable adjudication between or across groups. That leaves open the only avenue available.
                      Ummm...no. The problems with these statements are the highlighted phrases. There are means for reasonable adjudication. There is simply no means that is guaranteed to arrive at a mutually agreed upon conclusion. Your objective world has the same problem for different reasons. If two people cite two different "objective frameworks" as the "right" or "true" framework, there is no guaranteed mechanism for adjudicating which of them is the correct framework. And I presume your "only avenue" is "force" or "power," but that is not the ONLY avenue. THere are three avenues, and that is court of last resorts. Unfortunately, too often, people resort to the court of last resorts.

                      You will note that the legal world has the same problems. Different laws between communities, cultures, religions, countries, etc. Still, no one is arguing "the legal system MUST be based on objective truths or we won't be able to adjudicate the differences!" The legal world is subjectively derived to each community/culture/nation. I don't see why such a fuss is made when someone suggests that morality is analogous.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Tass, I'm still trying to find out what you mean by evidence: Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience?
                        I’m still trying to find out WHY, according to you, objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation. As far as I know deities don’t exist. Why do you think they do?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          I’m still trying to find out WHY, according to you, objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation. As far as I know deities don’t exist. Why do you think they do?
                          How can I tell you why until you give me some idea of what you consider evidence? So said I need evidence, OK, what kind? I mean if you can not even articulate what type or kind of evidence you are looking for then we are dead in the water.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            How can I tell you why until you give me some idea of what you consider evidence?
                            You should be able to tell me easily why you believe as you do. You say objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation, but you have yet to show that god exists. This surely is the logical first step.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              You should be able to tell me easily why you believe as you do. You say objective morality is grounded in God’s revelation, but you have yet to show that god exists. This surely is the logical first step.
                              Right and what kind of evidence are you looking for? Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Right and what kind of evidence are you looking for? Scientific evidence? Historical evidence? Personal experience?
                                I think Tass is simply asking what kind of evidence you have, seer. That you've had personal experiences is not evidence to anyone else but you, that you observed a levitating bush in the woods isn't evidence to anyone else but you, and if you wrote a book and claimed it's contents were revealed to you by god, that would not be evidence to anyone else but you. As far as science goes, there is no scientific evidence of a god.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X