Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 08:52 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:42 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Hopefully he will clarify his position.

Here's something I'm failing to comprehend.

You (Matt), and Tommy and others in the past seem insistent that other people need to ascribe to some pre-defined 'position'.

Kinda reminds me of the "Which football team do you support?" question or the "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground... presumably intended as a way of categorising someone as a preliminary to making a judgement about them and deciding whether they were 'of the right tribe'.

Back then, as now, I have no answer ... even 'none of the above' seems like an inadequate statement.

I think the answer I used to give was ... "I'm still thinking about it."

I suspect that the majority of the deep and independent thinkers on this site might have developed their own 'position' which may or may not yet have an official label.

Consider





The problem is that many atheists are inconsistent and speak out of both sides of their mouth. In the video above, the atheist says that there is no basis for objective morality, but he also says that what Hitler did was objectively wrong. And, we've all heard (many times on this site) an atheist proclaim that his morals are superior to the morals of a religious person, but that would be impossible without an objective basis for morality, wouldn't it? With no objective basis, morals could only be different, and there would be no basis to say that one set of morals is superior to another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 08:53 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
The Answer is T-Rex, that was far superior in rocking action and had great guitar work. Sadly though I never had any childhood schoolyard glam rock debates, can't say it was anywhere close to those topics.

"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
24-03-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:32 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground...

Huh Never heard of such a thing DLJ, care to explain to someone of non British decent?

I dunno! Some people! Facepalm Didn't you get no education?





OR




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
24-03-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
The problem is that many atheists are inconsistent and speak out of both sides of their mouth. In the video above, the atheist says that there is no basis for objective morality, but he also says that what Hitler did was objectively wrong.
...

It's gone midnight here and I'm not in the mood to dissect the whole video. But I did watch it.

To be fair, Craig was talking about 'absolute' moral values and duties rather than 'objective' ones although he did use the term 'objectively wrong' and 'standard' later. Lewis Wolpert (a Biologist, not a professional apologist or philosopher) did argue for a basis for morality (biology, history and sociology) but did not argue (in that clip, at any rate) for an axiology by which to measure objectively... He alluded to such in the Hitler-moment but did not state it. There was some equivocation / confusion, I think, between descriptive and normative.

(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
And, we've all heard (many times on this site) an atheist proclaim that his morals are superior to the morals of a religious person,
...

Perhaps. And that would be an error.

However, it would be sensible to argue that there are objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively (qualitatively) better or worse methods for determining the value of a particular stance or course of action.

Namely a decision-making / governance system based on processes and facts would be superior to one based on faith or divine command.

(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
but that would be impossible without an objective basis for morality, wouldn't it?
...

Which is why an individual or a society needs to determine what that basis should be.

Even then, for the individual it would be personal and unlikely to be universal applicable to everyone else and for the society it would be consensus-based and again, unlikely to be universal. Either or both can be measured objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively (qualitatively).

(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
With no objective basis, morals could only be different, and there would be no basis to say that one set of morals is superior to another.

Once the basis (axiology or framework) has been established, the superiority (or otherwise) can be assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively with respect to how well that given set of morals (I'd prefer to say 'culture, ethics and behaviours') achieves the individual's or the society's stated goals.

And if you missed the nuance there, my "position" (if anyone cares) is that the terms 'objective morality' and 'subjective morality' are obsolete.

Cool

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
24-03-2016, 11:44 AM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think the problem is that many folks don't clearly express there own views. Like Chas inability to answer whether he lacks a belief in subjective morality or not, add that to Individuals like unbeliever who not only believe that morality is subjective, but that's it's obviously subjective.

Oh, do fuck off. Inability? Really?

Your lack of comprehension does not translate into my 'inability'.

Quote:I think there's something that should be addressed when one group imagines the answer is obvious, and another who imagines it is too difficult to categorize.

It all seems rather confused and contradictory, and perhaps more revealing of a lack of consistent thought on the matter than anything else.

It is only confused in your mind and the minds of others who claim there is objective morality but cannot define it, give concrete examples of it, nor even defend it except by assertion.

Morality is a social construct. Every society has constructed morality and constantly revises it.
Cultures that do not revise their morality die out as the world about them changes and leaves them behind.

You mean my lack of comprehension of your non-answers?

Do you believe morality is subjective, or do you lack a belief that morality is subjective?

Are you going to actually answer this question this time around?

"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
24-03-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:40 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Here's something I'm failing to comprehend.

You (Matt), and Tommy and others in the past seem insistent that other people need to ascribe to some pre-defined 'position'.

Kinda reminds me of the "Which football team do you support?" question or the "Slade or T-Rex?" question from my childhood playground... presumably intended as a way of categorising someone as a preliminary to making a judgement about them and deciding whether they were 'of the right tribe'.

Back then, as now, I have no answer ... even 'none of the above' seems like an inadequate statement.

I think the answer I used to give was ... "I'm still thinking about it."

I suspect that the majority of the deep and independent thinkers on this site might have developed their own 'position' which may or may not yet have an official label.

Consider





The problem is that many atheists are inconsistent and speak out of both sides of their mouth. In the video above, the atheist says that there is no basis for objective morality, but he also says that what Hitler did was objectively wrong. And, we've all heard (many times on this site) an atheist proclaim that his morals are superior to the morals of a religious person, but that would be impossible without an objective basis for morality, wouldn't it? With no objective basis, morals could only be different, and there would be no basis to say that one set of morals is superior to another.

Better and worse are subjective. Your argument fails. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:52 AM
Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
I think there's something that should be addressed when one group imagines the answer is obvious, and another who imagines it is too difficult to categorize.
...

... or, as in my case, another who considers that the categories are confused, out-dated or irrelevant.

Yes

The categories are confused only when it's come to morality, or in general?

I'll ask you a similar question to one I posed to Bucky, which he dodged.

Can you provide an example of a non-moral subjective statement, as well as non-moral objective statement, and elaborate on why one statement is objective and the other is not.

I'm trying to gauge when it is the line becomes confusing, and outdated.

"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
24-03-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Moral absolutes



There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... or, as in my case, another who considers that the categories are confused, out-dated or irrelevant.

Yes

The categories are confused only when it's come to morality, or in general?

I'll ask you a similar question to one I posed to Bucky, which he dodged.

Can you provide an example of a non-moral subjective statement, as well as non-moral objective statement, and elaborate on why one statement is objective and the other is not.

I'm trying to gauge when it is the line becomes confusing, and outdated.
Objective statement (1+1=2)
Subjective statement (vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
24-03-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(24-03-2016 11:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, do fuck off. Inability? Really?

Your lack of comprehension does not translate into my 'inability'.


It is only confused in your mind and the minds of others who claim there is objective morality but cannot define it, give concrete examples of it, nor even defend it except by assertion.

Morality is a social construct. Every society has constructed morality and constantly revises it.
Cultures that do not revise their morality die out as the world about them changes and leaves them behind.

You mean my lack of comprehension of your non-answers?

Do you believe morality is subjective, or do you lack a belief that morality is subjective?

Are you going to actually answer this question this time around?

If you had any deductive thinking ability you would see the answer, but I suppose I must spoon feed you.

Objective vs subjective is a false dichotomy, as noted above by DLJ, although in different terminology.

There is no external source for morality and no external scale by which to measure it.

Morality and ethics are social constructs with a biological basis, hence the near universality of many 'moral' principles since we are all of one species.

I have said all of this before, so before you go accusing someone of the inability to answer a question, check the facts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: