What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[phiwum]

Let's set aside the first and second sentences. The only moral is the 3, as you say.

But it is ambiguous. Who is suffering and who is cooperating in your example?

Two possibilities.
(a) I prefer to be cooperating to be in pain. Not too much sense, is it not? And it is not a moral example.
(b) I prefer to cause suffering to cooperate, if I obtain gain with it or because I am a sadist.
(c) I don't matter if I cause pain or pleasure or if I cooperate or not. Only my personal benefit is important to me.

Do you think you can show that (b) and (c) are in a mistake in the same way that 1. and 2.? Go ahead! Try it!

But I Am The Scum didn't say that he could show that the third statement is objectively true. He merely mentioned the possibility of it. Hence, he is not committed to the claim that (b) and (c) are provably "mistakes".

There's a long way from saying, "I see no inherent contradiction in the notion of objective moral norms," to saying, "Today, right now, I am thoroughly prepared to show that this is an objective moral norm."

 

[Leumas]

Since I have explicitly said that I'm not talking about God-given moral laws and the threat of punishment, your comments are plainly off the mark.

Who are you arguing against? The current conversation has nothing to do with Christianity.

I was not responding to YOUR argument... I was responding to the arguments mentioned in the OP of this thread and what the OP is talking about... the OP of this thread is talking about the religious arguments given for objective morality such as those of William Lain Craig and many others.

So religion and Christianity have everything to do with the OP of this thread and the topic of the conversation is about what is the appeal of objective morality during religious arguments as those given by debaters like WLC who also then go on to argue for the Christian sky daddy according to their illogic.

If there is an argument, as WLC certainly does all the time in his debates, that atheists have no reason to not lie and cheat, then it would only be logical to point out that since the very supposedly religious founding fathers of Christianity were liars then they too must have not believed in anything called objective morality either and thus their rationality must have been the driving force behind their lies.

I think this fact is a very strong and pertinent counter argument to the stuff mentioned in the OP of this thread about the arguments of religious advocates of objective morality such as WLC.

I've spent a decent amount of time over the last few years learning about religious argumentation through debates, lectures, and other formats and there's something on my mind at present which I can't wrap my head around: objective morality.

Now, what's most commonly done (in my experience) is that when someone's religious moral views are challenged, the theist will exclaim that without religion (or some belief system) you can't have Objective Moral Values (OMV). They will then attack moral relativism as if it's the only alternative since they see it as entirely subjective (I'm not sure, tbh).

Ofc, I see their religious views as subjective even if the morals themselves are supposed to be objective (after all, it's based on interpretation or emotion, both of which are considered to be NOT objective at least under WLC's definition)...

I'm fine with all of this but I wonder what the appeal is in the first place for a system of objectivity when it comes to morality. I know we like to have simple answers to complicated questions but I wonder if that's not only unrealistic but is it even desirable outside of convenience?

I honestly don't know and am just rambling a bit. Feel free to share your thoughts.

 

[phiwum]

I was not responding to YOUR argument... I was responding to the arguments mentioned in the OP of this thread and what the OP is talking about... the OP of this thread is talking about the religious arguments given for objective morality such as those of William Lain Craig and many others.

Yes, but no one here is discussing that any more and they haven't been for some time. You weren't responding just now to the OP, but to posts in the current state of the conversation and for no evident reason, you decided to drag it back to Christianity-bashing.

It is a pointless distraction. Please cut it out.

If you want to discuss the issues in the OP, please feel free to respond to the OP or other posts about Christian views of objective morality. As it is, the topic is currently on other notions of objective morality.

Thanks much.

 

[David Mo]

But I Am The Scum didn't say that he could show that the third statement is objectively true. He merely mentioned the possibility of it. Hence, he is not committed to the claim that (b) and (c) are provably "mistakes".

There's a long way from saying, "I see no inherent contradiction in the notion of objective moral norms," to saying, "Today, right now, I am thoroughly prepared to show that this is an objective moral norm."

Yes, but I am a little tired of abstract debates, ideal suppositions and assertions about possibility.

If anyone thinks that moral is objective, let us take a moral principle and prove it is objective now and here.

If you don't like this, you can show how an inmoral principle is objectively wrong. For example: "I don't matter if I cause pain or pleasure or if I cooperate or not. Only my personal benefit is important to me".

Ideal suppositions, vague possibilities, etc. don't make progress our discussion.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, but I am a little tired of abstract debates, ideal suppositions and assertions about possibility.

If anyone thinks that moral is objective, let us take a moral principle and prove it is objective now and here.

If you don't like this, you can show how an inmoral principle is objectively wrong. For example: "I don't matter if I cause pain or pleasure or if I cooperate or not. Only my personal benefit is important to me".

Ideal suppositions, vague possibilities, etc. don't make progress our discussion.

In the end, I don't speak for The Scum, but I would be happy if we settle the possibility of objective norms broadly speaking. That seems like progress to me.

Early on, you attempted to show that anti-realism was correct. Far as I was concerned, the argument didn't work. We may return to evaluating that argument, if you wish. It isn't as if anti-realism is a default position.

ETA: Out of curiousity, did you really think that anyone on an online forum would succeed in settling the moral realism debate?

 

[David Mo]

In the end, I don't speak for The Scum, but I would be happy if we settle the possibility of objective norms broadly speaking. That seems like progress to me.

Early on, you attempted to show that anti-realism was correct. Far as I was concerned, the argument didn't work. We may return to evaluating that argument, if you wish. It isn't as if anti-realism is a default position.

ETA: Out of curiousity, did you really think that anyone on an online forum would succeed in settling the moral realism debate?

If someone says that green dogs exist he must prove it. The charge of proof, you know. To show an exemplar is the most evident way to do this.

Your curiousity: I doubt it very much, but who knows? Maybe some interesting contribution. Maybe green dogs exist.

PS: And writing in this forum is good for my practices of English. I'm improving a lot.

 

[phiwum]

If someone says that green dogs exist he must prove it. The charge of proof, you know. The most evident way to do this is showing one exemplar.

Your curiousity: I doubt it very much, but who knows? Maybe some interesting contribution. Maybe green dogs exist.

PS: And writing in this forum is good for my practices of English. I'm improving a lot.

Yes, and so if I ever confidently state that there are objective moral norms, then I should be expected to provide an argument to that effect.

Did I say anything stronger than that I am sympathetic to that claim? I don't think so. I certainly have never said I could prove it is true, or that my leanings should influence anyone else.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In the end, I don't speak for The Scum, but I would be happy if we settle the possibility of objective norms broadly speaking. That seems like progress to me.

Early on, you attempted to show that anti-realism was correct. Far as I was concerned, the argument didn't work. We may return to evaluating that argument, if you wish. It isn't as if anti-realism is a default position.

ETA: Out of curiousity, did you really think that anyone on an online forum would succeed in settling the moral realism debate?

No, but it is settled - Protagoras did that. The only reason it appears that it is not settled, is that some people argue subjectively that objective morality is possible, but they ignore that they are doing so subjectively. I.e "I think subjectivity is irrelevant for morality and believe that we can't rule out objectivity". The problem is they subjectively deny subjectivity. That is it.

 

[phiwum]

No, but it is settled - Protagoras did that. The only reason it appears that it is not settled, is that some people argue subjectively that objective morality is possible, but they ignore that they are doing so subjectively. I.e "I think subjectivity is irrelevant for morality and believe that we can't rule out objectivity". The problem is they subjectively deny subjectivity. That is it.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you're claiming all arguments about realism are inherently subjective.

If so, the conclusion is not that the issue is settled, but that it is (objectively) undecidable.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but it seems to be that you're claiming all arguments about realism are inherently subjective.

If so, the conclusion is not that the issue is settled, but that it is (objectively) undecidable.

We can continue, but you have just invoked a negative - it is (objectively) undecidable - as a positive. You claim it is undecidable, so evidence please. Now if you can give evidence that it is (objectively) undecidable, then you have given evidence that objective morality is possible, because objective morality can be used.

In short, if an objective methodology doesn't work, then what do people do when they do morality?
Your counter argument amounts to this - we can't rule out objectivity! Yes, we can, because nobody has ever been able to do it, because when we look closer they always do it subjectively.

I am willing to go over all the steps, but if you pull this one to any similar effect - I subjectively deny subjectivity as relevant, but I subjectively hold objectivity as possible, but I don't have to explain how that is possible, other than I hold it as possible - then I stop. You have to suspend judgment regarding that you claim that objective morality is possible if you have to understand why it is not relevant. Or rather it is as relevant as to claim because we have no positive evidence for God, we still have to include God as possibility when we do morality in practice.

If you want to go from here, I suggest we start with fallibilism in part.

 

[I Am The Scum]

We can continue, but you have just invoked a negative - it is (objectively) undecidable - as a positive. You claim it is undecidable, so evidence please. Now if you can give evidence that it is (objectively) undecidable, then you have given evidence that objective morality is possible, because objective morality can be used.

You have, several times in this thread, expressed strange notions about the very possibility of objective truth or falsehood. Just to make sure there is no fundamental, catastrophic misunderstanding, I will ask the following question: Do you agree that some claims are objectively true, and some are objectively false?

I am not asking about morality right now.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You have, several times in this thread, expressed strange notions about the very possibility of objective truth or falsehood. Just to make sure there is no fundamental, catastrophic misunderstanding, I will ask the following question: Do you agree that some claims are objectively true, and some are objectively false?

I am not asking about morality right now.

Let me ask you this: Can a claim be objectively false and subjectively true?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In short explain objective and subjective using in part causality.

You should be able to do so since you understand science and can explain reality using science including causality.

 

[David Mo]

If someone says that green dogs exist he must prove it. The charge of proof, you know. To show an exemplar is the most evident way to do this.

Your curiousity: I doubt it very much, but who knows? Maybe some interesting contribution. Maybe green dogs exist.

PS: And writing in this forum is good for my practices of English. I'm improving a lot.

"Show an example/specimen", of course. Damned false friends!

 

[tsig]

In short explain objective and subjective using in part causality.

You should be able to do so since you understand science and can explain reality using science including causality.

Clearly the objectivity of reality is plain for all anti-realists and it's connection to causality is completely self evident when seen from a rational point of view however subjectivity is subject to the whims and vagaries of human opinion so is always a shifting subject, subjectively.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Clearly the objectivity of reality is plain for all anti-realists and it's connection to causality is completely self evident when seen from a rational point of view however subjectivity is subject to the whims and vagaries of human opinion so is always a shifting subject, subjectively.

Yes, overall reality is objective, but when you have biological evolution a part of reality in practice becomes subjective.

 

[phiwum]

We can continue, but you have just invoked a negative - it is (objectively) undecidable - as a positive. You claim it is undecidable, so evidence please. Now if you can give evidence that it is (objectively) undecidable, then you have given evidence that objective morality is possible, because objective morality can be used.

It's not difficult to see.

If every argument regarding realism is by nature subjective (which is what I think you're saying), then it follows that there are no objective arguments about realism and hence it is objectively undecidable.

In short, if an objective methodology doesn't work, then what do people do when they do morality?
Your counter argument amounts to this - we can't rule out objectivity! Yes, we can, because nobody has ever been able to do it, because when we look closer they always do it subjectively.

I really don't think I know what you're talking about.

Can you tell me what you mean when you say, "they always do it (do what?) subjectively (meaning what?)" and also tell me what evidence we see when we look closer that persuades us that they are doing it subjectively?

 

[phiwum]

Let me ask you this: Can a claim be objectively false and subjectively true?

Surely not. The notions of truth/falsity and objectivity/subjectivity are orthogonal, I'd say.

 

[phiwum]

In short explain objective and subjective using in part causality.

You should be able to do so since you understand science and can explain reality using science including causality.

Wow. I really, really have no idea what the heck you're asking for here.

But since you've just made a bald statement about certain things that are subjective, surely you can explain these terms for us rather than assigning us homework we haven't agreed to?

 

[jakesteele]

Objective Morality: the belief that there is a super-natural force that imposes arbitrary rules upon us using a "Zero Tolerance" policy: everything is "Black" or "White". It is the wish to be free from thinking about how difficult morality is to discover and apply. It is the desire of an infantilized mind to be told what to do.

Pray tell, if you say "discover and apply", where does your brand of morality come from? Is there some kind of Cosmic blueprint indelibly stamped onto the *Aether of the the Universe?

*material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.

By your statement(s) you seem to be espousing that there is some kind of objective morality that only people with your mind set are willing to guts it out to discover...what? Please define what your blueprint is for this seemingly universal morality that you're espousing that only someone like you and others of your ilk can discover.