A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2015, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2015 09:24 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

It can be used to indicate when taken as a whole, one of two things that either morality is objective, or that objective morality is an illusion, like we might say of personal autonomy, or free-will.

It would be to say that we are wired by evolution to perceive morality as objective, that we have moral obligations and duties, that right and wrong are not merely a matter of personal preferences, or our individual feelings. If you're going to account for our moral perceptions by appealing to an evolutionary base, it would have to be one that accounts for a perception of objective morality all together.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Don't forget that Tommy's using the definition of 'objective' as being ... hmmm ... 'a subjective collective' (or some such).

My use of objective here, is the same way we would say "objective" truth.

In fact the arguments against objective morality often presented here and elsewhere, could be reframed and used to argue against objective truth all together.

They could be and would be justifiably because those are both concepts that are flawed via the same reasoning.

I still find it interesting you seem far more focused on whether people naturally belief in objective morality over there being any case of it actually existing.

(31-12-2015 09:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  That indicates that morality has a biological, therefore evolutionary, base. It is not an argument for "objective morality".

It can be used to indicate when taken as a whole, one of two things that either morality is objective, or that objective morality is an illusion, like we might say of personal autonomy, or free-will.

It would be to say that we are wired by evolution to perceive morality as objective, that we have moral obligations and duties, that right and wrong are not merely a matter of personal preferences, or our individual feelings. If you're going to account for our moral perceptions by appealing to an evolutionary base, it would have to be one that accounts for a perception of objective morality all together.

The lack of any element of doubt in your stance here is depressing. You've become so convinced of a claim still backed on assertions you've made repeatedly.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
31-12-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
......

Okay.

I'm going to ask a question.

It's going to probably be a dumb question.

Whether the question is dumb, actually ASKING it is dumb, because it will involve me in this thread.

To people on both sides of this debate, I have to ask:

What difference does it make?

Seriously. Let us say we ever arrived at a definitive answer of "objective" or "subjective".

Then what?

In what way would that knowledge actually change.... anything?

Would we approach morality differently?

If we went from a model of two groups holding subjective opinions engaged in shoulder-jostling to dominance in society and/or to persuade each other on points of moral difference, to a model of two groups with (at least) one in error over their understanding of objective morality engaged in shoulder-jostling for dominance in society and/or to persuade each other on points of moral difference... what would change? If we went the other way, what would change? Would we go about these moral arguments in a different way? Would different techniques become more successful or less in persuasion if morality was objective, or subjective?

If we went from a model of somewhat ad-hoc production of a human construct of social behavior to a slowly growing collective awareness of an objective standard, or if we went the other direction, what would change? Would our current methodology of society's moral development (which seems to be mostly about pitting existing inconsistencies in moral standards against each other, eg, the "immorality" of homosexuality versus the immorality of unequal rights and persecution of minorities) change in the slightest?

What difference does it make?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I still find it interesting you seem far more focused on whether people naturally belief in objective morality over there being any case of it actually existing.

To me the line between an innate perception of objective morality, that's cross cultural etc., or as your put it, people's natural belief in objective morality, and the line between it actually existing is a thin one. Almost as thin as the line between the reality that exists in our minds, and the one that exists out there. If you're an atheists then it's entirely understandable why this is nothing more than an illusion, and if you're theists it shouldn't be hard to see why this is viewed as real.

To me arguing with someone in support of objective morality, is probably what it would feel like to argue with the Solipsist that a reality outside of their minds exists.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 08:35 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I would think that if there was a deity that set some sort of moral standard into the fabric of universal law, then we would see immediate repercussions from violating said law. If murder was that law, then perhaps the murderer would immediately die as a result after murdering someone. This would be something that is demonstrable and repeatable, Karma on steroids, 100% effective at all times.

I think it would be a far different world that we see from that which we currently live in.

Why would that be the case at all? In fact what we do when it comes to immorality, from the holocaust to the lynching, is the suppression of truth, that the actions themselves are built on lies. We live in world where immorality appears as a form of rebellion against what is true.

The holocaust derived from Hitler's perception of truth. Asserting that something is "objective" is asserting that it is tangible.

The definition of objective:

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

c: of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c

d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

Morality is not tangible, it is a mere concept made by groups of evolved primates.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
31-12-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:28 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  To people on both sides of this debate, I have to ask:

What difference does it make?

Seriously. Let us say we ever arrived at a definitive answer of "objective" or "subjective".

Then what?

In what way would that knowledge actually change.... anything?

Would we approach morality differently?

In regards to morality, no it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. It wouldn't make us any more moral, make us more dedicated to the good life that we already are.

These arguments are almost entirely pointless in terms of proactive moral behavior, or even our common moral arguments. All these arguments already presuppose an objective morality, regardless if a person privately says to themselves morality is subjective.

We argue about right and wrong, as if there is an actual right and wrong, and we're just trying to see it better. We argue as two lawyers in a law court argue over the interpretation and application of a real, carved in stone law. We argue our moral views the way two people might argue over the age of the earth.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:34 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why would that be the case at all? In fact what we do when it comes to immorality, from the holocaust to the lynching, is the suppression of truth, that the actions themselves are built on lies. We live in world where immorality appears as a form of rebellion against what is true.

The holocaust derived from Hitler's perception of truth. Asserting that something is "objective" is asserting that it is tangible.

The definition of objective:

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

c: of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c

d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

Morality is not tangible, it is a mere concept made by groups of evolved primates.

And all that can be said about mathematics. Awhile ago someone here even tried to suggest that the answer to any given mathematical equation is subjective.

But you're right, if objective morality does in fact exist, that it would have some sort of transcendent reality in which it's grounded upon, which would pose more of problem for your atheism, than my theism.

But if we're suppose to accept that such a thing does not exist, that it seems to be the inventible conclusion is that objective morality is an illusion.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 09:34 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  The holocaust derived from Hitler's perception of truth. Asserting that something is "objective" is asserting that it is tangible.

The definition of objective:

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

c: of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c

d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>

Morality is not tangible, it is a mere concept made by groups of evolved primates.

And all that can be said about mathematics. Awhile ago someone here even tried to suggest that the answer to any given mathematical equation is subjective.

But you're right, if objective morality does in fact exist, that it would have some sort of transcendent reality in which it's grounded upon, which would pose more of problem for your atheism, than my theism.

But if we're suppose to accept that such a thing does not exist, that it seems to be the inventible conclusion is that objective morality is an illusion.

It wouldn't necessarily pose any problem at all... that's the flaw of the premise 1 in the religious guys video.

There is no logical connection to connect objective morality and Deity/God figures. Objective morality, if existed, could exist as the forces of nature exist. Or in some cosmic order of layers that exists without any creator at the start of it.

Hell, even when it comes to god & morality there is the ever unanswered proposition of is something morally right because God says it or is it morally right so god obeys it. Morality could exist within the realm of a God and be God's command but not be objective. The concepts aren't so directly connected like some want to propose.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 09:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Objective morality, if existed, could exist as the forces of nature exist. Or in some cosmic order of layers that exists without any creator at the start of it.

If that were true, that objective morality existed the way the forces of nature exist, the way that perhaps the Buddhist monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, put's it "as intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.", you'd have an excellent design argument, far more compelling than anything else currently offered, like irreducible complexity. If teachers were to teach their students that such a reality existed, we'd likely have to redo the Dover trials all over again.

But that's besides the point. Sure I guess you could hypothetically still classify yourself as an atheists and believe this, but you'd likely fall into a minority among other self-identifying atheists. It probably wouldn't be a very comfortable position for your run of the mill self-identifying atheists, because in a lot of ways this view would be somewhat indistinguishable from certain theistic perspectives. I'd have all sort of questions for such an atheists.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(31-12-2015 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2015 09:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Objective morality, if existed, could exist as the forces of nature exist. Or in some cosmic order of layers that exists without any creator at the start of it.

If that were true, that objective morality existed the way the forces of nature exist, the way that perhaps the Buddhist monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, put's it "as intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.", you'd have an excellent design argument, far more compelling than anything else currently offered, like irreducible complexity. If teachers were to teach their students that such a reality existed, we'd likely have to redo the Dover trials all over again.

But that's besides the point. Sure I guess you could hypothetically still classify yourself as an atheists and believe this, but you'd likely fall into a minority among other self-identifying atheists. It probably wouldn't be a very comfortable position for your run of the mill self-identifying atheists, because in a lot of ways this view would be somewhat indistinguishable from certain theistic perspectives. I'd have all sort of questions for such an atheists.

It would turn the tables on atheists, we'd be like creationists in denial of reality and scientific evidence that is demonstrable.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: