What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[phiwum]

Delete, my error.

 

[David Mo]

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.

All right.
Then we shall wait for someone to present some example of moral objective principle and moral objective reasoning.
Menawhile we can affirm that moral principles are not objective.

 

[phiwum]

All right.
Then we shall wait for someone to present some example of moral objective principle and moral objective reasoning.
Menawhile we can affirm that moral principles are not objective.

Goodness, dear sir, you are surely aware of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

 

[David Mo]

Goodness, dear sir, you are surely aware of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Yes, sir. But do you think that green dogs, little fairies, mountain gnomes and flying dragons exist? Why not? Have you any evidence of their non-existence?
Exactly.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, sir. But do you think that green dogs, little fairies, mountain gnomes and flying dragons exist? Why not? Have you any evidence of their non-existence?
Exactly.

It's quite simple.

The earth is well-inhabited and well-explored. There are, far as I know, no mammals that are green, and certainly no discovered canines that are green. We do occasionally discover new species, but I think that new canines are very rarely discovered, and given that there are no known green mammals, I think the odds that we have failed to discover green canines are very slim.

So, in this case, it seems the lack of evidence combined with certain knowledge about mammals, rate of discovery of species, etc., give me actual reasons to conclude that green dogs are unlikely. I think the same considerations apply for the other examples.

This, then, is not an appeal to ignorance, but an appeal to certain facts.

I see no particular analogue for the case of objective morals. We can say this: so far, there is no convincing argument that there are objective moral norms. This by itself does not give any particular evidence that such norms do not exist unless we think that a successful argument would likely have been discovered by now if they did exist. But we know also that no successful argument has been given so far that there are no objective moral norms, so it seems to me that we are at an impasse.

Arguments about philosophical claims are not much like arguments concerning the existence of unknown species quite different from those we know, it seems.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It's quite simple.

The earth is well-inhabited and well-explored. There are, far as I know, no mammals that are green, and certainly no discovered canines that are green. We do occasionally discover new species, but I think that new canines are very rarely discovered, and given that there are no known green mammals, I think the odds that we have failed to discover green canines are very slim.

So, in this case, it seems the lack of evidence combined with certain knowledge about mammals, rate of discovery of species, etc., give me actual reasons to conclude that green dogs are unlikely. I think the same considerations apply for the other examples.

This, then, is not an appeal to ignorance, but an appeal to certain facts.

I see no particular analogue for the case of objective morals. We can say this: so far, there is no convincing argument that there are objective moral norms. This by itself does not give any particular evidence that such norms do not exist unless we think that a successful argument would likely have been discovered by now if they did exist. But we know also that no successful argument has been given so far that there are no objective moral norms, so it seems to me that we are at an impasse.

Arguments about philosophical claims are not much like arguments concerning the existence of unknown species quite different from those we know, it seems.

What would a successful argument against objective moral norms be and/or for subjective moral norms be?

 

[phiwum]

What would a successful argument against objective moral norms be and/or for subjective moral norms be?

An argument that shows that, for instance, no norm is objective because the two concepts are contradictory would do. But I don't think that one could show that, since (as I've said in this thread) it seems that there are objective non-moral norms.

An argument to the effect that objective morality itself entails some sort of contradiction would do as well, though it would likely be quite difficult to make compelling. You would have to define objective morality broadly enough that your definition applies to all of the standard views of morality, and show that using that definition, one could derive a contradiction.

These are the most obvious strategies from my perspective. I don't think anyone (aside from postmodernists?) would want to deny that there are such things as objective propositions generally speaking, so that everything is subjective.

 

[Leumas]

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.

Other than the motivation I explained in this post.... I have just realized that there is indeed another motivation.... and it is embodied in the post below.... I am calling it the PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS.

It is to keep going without any justification despite the blaringly obvious scientific facts and findings and empirical evidence, the

....We can say this: so far, there is no convincing argument that there are objective moral norms. This by itself does not give any particular evidence that such norms do not exist unless we think that a successful argument would likely have been discovered by now if they did exist. But we know also that no successful argument has been given so far that there are no objective moral norms, so it seems to me that we are at an impasse.

Arguments about philosophical claims are not much like arguments concerning the existence of unknown species quite different from those we know, it seems.

And just to show how the above PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS is the same nonsense as the religious argumentation for the GODS OF THE GAPS, I will quote it again with a very slight modification to spotlight the glaring similarity.

....We can say this: so far, there is no convincing argument that there are objective moral norms gods. This by itself does not give any particular evidence that such norms gods do not exist unless we think that a successful argument would likely have been discovered by now if they did exist. But we know also that no successful argument has been given so far that there are no objective moral norms gods, so it seems to me that we are at an impasse.

And when one then points out how science has explained and shown that the argument is as illogical as maintaining that we are at an impasse in regards to fairies and dragons and demons and genies and all such woo... the following reply is often given.

Arguments about philosophical claims of God are not much like arguments concerning the existence of unknown species quite different from those we know, it seems.

So there you have it... QED!!!

Whether it is to keep the cracks and fissures stuffed with gods or overflowing with philosophical claims it is all the same... either one claims the DENIZENS OF THE GAPS!!!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

An argument that shows that, for instance, no norm is objective because the two concepts are contradictory would do. But I don't think that one could show that, since (as I've said in this thread) it seems that there are objective non-moral norms.

An argument to the effect that objective morality itself entails some sort of contradiction would do as well, though it would likely be quite difficult to make compelling. You would have to define objective morality broadly enough that your definition applies to all of the standard views of morality, and show that using that definition, one could derive a contradiction.

These are the most obvious strategies from my perspective. I don't think anyone (aside from postmodernists?) would want to deny that there are such things as objective propositions generally speaking, so that everything is subjective.

Is this post a contradiction? I deny that the reason that this post appears here has in part to do with causality in my brain. I.e. processes in my brain are not part of the causality involved in this post. Is this kind of claim a contradiction?

 

[phiwum]

Is this post a contradiction? I deny that the reason that this post appears here has in part to do with causality in my brain. I.e. processes in my brain are not part of the causality involved in this post. Is this kind of claim a contradiction?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point.

But perhaps this helps. Take any valid rule of inference, say, Modus Ponens (from P -> Q and P, infer Q). When we say that this is a valid rule of inference and that a rational person would accept an inference of this sort, we are not saying (merely) that it happens that our brain causes us to reason thus, but that in fact, the truth of the premises actually do entail the truth of the conclusion.

So, there are two claims here:
(1) That, as it happens, we do reason according to MP, at least often.
(2) That we are also rationally justified in doing so -- it is a valid rule of inference.

On the other hand, we also seem prone to reasoning according to fallacies such as the Gambler's Fallacy. It is clear that this reasoning is fallacious: it leads to conclusions which are false, despite the truth of the premises. Thus, we see the following are true:
(1) As it happens, we tend to reason according to the Gambler's Fallacy.
(2) The Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious -- we ought not reason according to it.
Fortunately, we can also notice that
(3) Once one is aware of the fallacy, he can consciously avoid it thereafter.

The fact that we have certain behaviors and reasoning tendencies is not, then, the end of the story, because we can evaluate the appropriateness of our inferences. The former descriptive claim is primarily about our subjective features -- features which are true about us -- while the latter claim is about subjective features of certain forms of inference.

I don't know if that helps clarify my points.

 

[phiwum]

And when one then points out how science has explained and shown that the argument is as illogical as maintaining that we are at an impasse in regards to fairies and dragons and demons and genies and all such woo... the following reply is often given.

But you have shown no such thing -- science does not make any claims about the objectivity of moral norms. Science can describe human behavior, but things like the validity of inferences, the desirability of (final) ends, and so on, are just not the subject of empirical observations and experiments.

I know, however, that telling you this again does nothing to change your opinion. Indeed, I fully expect that you will once again claim that this is evidence that philosophy is anti-science. (To find out the actual views of philosophers, you might look at this paper and see just what a bizarre caricature you've created, by the way.)

 

[phiwum]

Is this post a contradiction? I deny that the reason that this post appears here has in part to do with causality in my brain. I.e. processes in my brain are not part of the causality involved in this post. Is this kind of claim a contradiction?

Thinking a bit more about your post: No, your claim that this post is not caused by brain processes is not, by itself, a contradiction, but it obviously contradicts our best scientific theories about the causes of human action. Thus, it is not self-contradictory, but contradictory in the context of a certain theory.

 

[tsig]

Other than the motivation I explained in this post.... I have just realized that there is indeed another motivation.... and it is embodied in the post below.... I am calling it the PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS.

It is to keep going without any justification despite the blaringly obvious scientific facts and findings and empirical evidence, the






And just to show how the above PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS is the same nonsense as the religious argumentation for the GODS OF THE GAPS, I will quote it again with a very slight modification to spotlight the glaring similarity.




And when one then points out how science has explained and shown that the argument is as illogical as maintaining that we are at an impasse in regards to fairies and dragons and demons and genies and all such woo... the following reply is often given.




So there you have it... QED!!!

Whether it is to keep the cracks and fissures stuffed with gods or overflowing with philosophical claims it is all the same... either one claims the DENIZENS OF THE GAPS!!!

Philosophy is theology without god. As you say the object is not to score a goal but to keep the ball in the air.

 

[phiwum]

Philosophy is theology without god. As you say the object is not to score a goal but to keep the ball in the air.

Whatever you think.

By the way, I answered your repeated questions about the ideally rational anti-realist about half a dozen times. Let me ask you: is my answer incorrect? If so, why? Where do I go wrong?

No sense leaving that ball in the air, right?

 

[Leumas]

But you have shown no such thing -- science does not make any claims about the objectivity of moral norms.

Yes indeed. Science also does not make any claims about fairies and demons and souls and spirits and ghosts.... other than to say that they are, as far as we can see, rubbish. Science cannot say much about "objective moral norms" other than that it is gobbledygook.

Science can describe human behavior, but things like the validity of inferences, the desirability of (final) ends, and so on, are just not the subject of empirical observations and experiments.

Most emphatically they are... and it has been demonstrated time and again that they are.

Your bare assertion that they are not, is just an illogical fallacy of ipse dixit and sophistry of the gaps.

I know, however, that telling you this again does nothing to change your opinion. Indeed, I fully expect that you will once again claim that this is evidence that philosophy is anti-science. (To find out the actual views of philosophers, you might look at this paper and see just what a bizarre caricature you've created, by the way.)

I have never said that REAL philosophy is anti-science. I have stated many times in many threads on this forum that philosophy is a valid and useful pursuit of science... as in knowledge... which is what science is and which is what the love for sophia is.

However the PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS is nothing but sophistry and obfuscation and befuddlement of sophia. A ruse used for millennia by the philodeusy camp to disguise their sophistry as philosophy.

Someone might be dumbfounded by the sheer volume of Aquinas' sophistry but if one actually reads it, one would realize that it is nothing but a pile of circular unreasoning all the way round and round.

 

[phiwum]

We are going in circles, Leumas. I see no reason to bother with this conversation. You have no respect for philosophy and that bothers me not one whit. You have fairly confused notions about the scope of science, and that bothers me more, but not enough to continue these dull conversations.

 

[Leumas]

You have no respect for philosophy...

Straw manning is yet another illogical fallacy.

The thing I have no respect for is pretend philosophy which is nothing but sophistic philodeusy of the gaps.

You have fairly confused notions about the scope of science,

I think the confusion is yours Phiwum!!

I think that if you cared to learn more about science you would find that there is no justification whatsoever for your wishful delimitations upon science's scope.

Your repeated bare assertions that somethings do not come under the purview of science is nothing but an illogical fallacy called ipse dixit.

If you knew more about physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, anthropology, evolution, neuro-electrochemical-biology, history, and well... SCIENCE... you might realize how wrong you are when you ipse dixit delimitations upon it.

When one knows how to use a hammer only then one might find lots and lots of things that are not within the scope of hammering... but if one knew about all the other tools that have ever been invented .... AND ... more importantly... that other tools can and will be invented that have not yet been even imagined.... then one might realize that there are more things that can be built with the tools of the ever EVOLVING toolbox called science.

and that bothers me

Yes indeed it should... because facts blatantly and most emphatically stand in stark contrast to your ipse dixit illogical fallacy... and truths can be hard to accept when one is so adamant about dismissing them without any logical or rational reasons for doing so other than wishful thinking and limited scope of knowledge.

It might behoove you to watch this video.... and the other video which I cited in this post.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, Leumas, that's nice. Good point. A bit frothy, but insightful nonetheless.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes indeed. Science also does not make any claims about fairies and demons and souls and spirits and ghosts.... other than to say that they are, as far as we can see, rubbish. Science cannot say much about "objective moral norms" other than that it is gobbledygook.

Most emphatically they are... and it has been demonstrated time and again that they are.

Your bare assertion that they are not, is just an illogical fallacy of ipse dixit and sophistry of the gaps.

I have never said that REAL philosophy is anti-science. I have stated many times in many threads on this forum that philosophy is a valid and useful pursuit of science... as in knowledge... which is what science is and which is what the love for sophia is.

However the PHILOSOPHY OF THE GAPS is nothing but sophistry and obfuscation and befuddlement of sophia. A ruse used for millennia by the philodeusy camp to disguise their sophistry as philosophy.

Someone might be dumbfounded by the sheer volume of Aquinas' sophistry but if one actually reads it, one would realize that it is nothing but a pile of circular unreasoning all the way round and round.

…goodness me…we have god-of-the-gaps, philosophy-of-the-gaps, sophistry-of-the-gaps. Whatever will appear next???

…here’s one…

You never stop pontificating about the endless capacity of science….but you have yet to demonstrate – despite numerous requests – how you used science to create these lamentably tedious posts of yours.

Why don’t we call it…Leumas-of-the-gaps!

 

[I Am The Scum]

Apparently, Leumas thinks "science" and "knowledge" are synonyms. Maybe "philosophy" and "religion" mean the same thing too.

I have no idea what "philodeusy" or "sophia" mean. Maybe they're friends of his?