Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 05:30 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 03:36 AM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
"Moral framework" is ambiguous. I think what you and DLJ are groping at is the idea of an axiology, i.e. a conception of what is morally good. That is the necessary starting point.
...

The only groping I do is consensual.

In the world I inhabit i.e. governance... we use terms like principles/values, policies and frameworks and ethics.

'Axiology', IIRC, is the study of values and value judgments. So no, not really what I was groping for but it's related.

I said framework and I meant framework.

Yes it's ambiguous but then, so is morality.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 05:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 05:35 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 04:30 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Objective morals vs absolutes morals .
Regardless whether or not they are are real, what is the difference ?.
DLC's take on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUE4cwNu...ata_player

Oops double post for some reason. Probably Chippy & Taq Fraking the forum up with multi posts.

Yes that's sound except that WLCs conception of objectivity can completely exclude all human opinion which can't be done with a naturalistic conception of value and morality. A naturalistic conception of value centers on what is good for most humans when they are functioning normally. There is a necessary reference to human well-being. With WLC something can be deemed "good" even if it makes everyone miserable.

An example: it is objectively wrong to inflict physical pain on someone (outliers such as masochists and those with Munchausen's syndrome don't change this)--that is a matter of objective moral truth. But there are some circumstances in which it is necessary to inflict physical pain on someone for some higher-order good, e.g. amputating a gangrenous limb, administering a vaccine to a child. Thus it is not an absolute proscription.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 05:46 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 05:30 AM)DLJ Wrote:  'Axiology', IIRC, is the study of values and value judgments.

It is but it can also be used to refer to a specific theory of value. It jars me when I read "feminist epistemology" because epistemology is the study of theories of knowledge but it too can be used to refer to a specific epistemological theory, e.g. feminist epistemology refers to a feminist theory of knowledge.

So it is fine to refer to a naturalistic axiology as a shorthand for a naturalistic theory of value.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 06:23 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I'm sorry to say this, but Chippy seems to be the only one that understands the dilemma and the philosophical consequences of holding to a purely subjective and contextual morality as opposed to a realist morality. Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I really think you should go back and read/watch Harris on this because he also understands the conundrum.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 06:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  I'm sorry to say this, but Chippy seems to be the only one that understands the dilemma and the philosophical consequences of holding to a purely subjective and contextual morality as opposed to a realist morality. Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I really think you should go back and read/watch Harris on this because he also understands the conundrum.

Tsk, tsk!

Telling me what I do / do not understand is bad form. No

Are you a theist?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 07:12 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 06:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  I'm sorry to say this, but Chippy seems to be the only one that understands the dilemma and the philosophical consequences of holding to a purely subjective and contextual morality as opposed to a realist morality. Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I really think you should go back and read/watch Harris on this because he also understands the conundrum.

In fairness to DLJ I think he is on the same page as you and I but he insists on using his own idiosyncratic language, e.g. framework, contextual, because he comes from a "world of governance" Tongue

It is a real problem, you are right, and most atheists fail to understand it let alone appreciate its significance.

PS:- In the other thread (re Amalekites) one of your posts implied I was a Calvinist. I'm not a Christian--I'm an atheist. It's that I take these matters seriously and endeavour to always accurately and honestly represent a theistic position that I am sometimes confused for a theist or even called a "troll". I have no interest in grasping at low-hanging fruit, fighting strawmen or getting involved in a circle-jerk.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
04-12-2013, 07:47 AM
RE: Objective Morality
I thought you were. I used to be a Calvinist. I've been an unbeliever for around a year. DLJ I think you might understand my dilemma as well. i don't think I understand some of the lingo, I've never studied philosophy but in my theist days this was a big apologetic arrow in my quiver. As I've seen things from a skeptic perspective I now see the issues with the divine command moral theory. I had forgotten about Sam Harris and find him incredibly helpful and understands my issue. Thanks for the input here

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 07:47 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  I thought you were. I used to be a Calvinist. I've been an unbeliever for around a year. DLJ I think you might understand my dilemma as well. i don't think I understand some of the lingo, I've never studied philosophy but in my theist days this was a big apologetic arrow in my quiver. As I've seen things from a skeptic perspective I now see the issues with the divine command moral theory. I had forgotten about Sam Harris and find him incredibly helpful and understands my issue. Thanks for the input here

I can recommend some philosophy books for you to read if that will help. In another thread I defended compatibilism and recommended some books to another member. Some reading on compatibilism is a good antidote to the determinism/fatalism of Calvinism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 08:27 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 08:50 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Objective Morality
It all started from "You scratch my back and i'll scratch yours"

EDIT: I don't think there's a concrete definition for morality.. it always depends on what the society generally accepts as right or wrong.

For ex: in Islamic nations its perfectly morally justified to stone a woman brutally to death just because she's accused of adultery.. perfectly accepted by the society as moral but it is not actually moral for us.

So morality is neither objective or subjective it varies on what the society accepts as moral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 08:06 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I can recommend some philosophy books for you to read if that will help. In another thread I defended compatibilism and recommended some books to another member. Some reading on compatibilism is a good antidote to the determinism/fatalism of Calvinism.
I think there's different notions of Calvinism, classically (before the 19 century) it didn't emphasize divine sovereignty as much as it does in some evangelical circles today in my opinion that just hold to the shirtened TULIP definition of Calvinism which does miss a lot of the nuances in the cannons of Dort. I was more of a reformed calvinist (held to the belgic confession, the heidelberg catechism and Dort).
I would like to listen/read about compatibilism even though I've heard it dismissed outright in atheist circles without giving it a fair hearing.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: