Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    You don't "know". Personal beliefs cannot be equated with factual knowledge.
    Not just a personal belief. Thanks for playing though!

    I get the feeling that it would be like talking with a guy who confuses personal belief in Jesus as his personal friend and saviour with verifiable facts.
    Nope. Try again!
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      You don't "know". Personal beliefs cannot be equated with factual knowledge.
      But what you just said is a personal belief!
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        You don't "know". Personal beliefs cannot be equated with factual knowledge.
        I think, perhaps, you draw too strong a line. I don't tend to think in these black/white terms. The primary definition of belief is: "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." The primary definition of knowledge is: "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

        The words are almost identical in their meaning. If I believe that special relativity is true, it becomes part of my knowledge. When I say I know something, it is because I believe it to be true. Even the line between "fact" and "belief" is a little blurry. Most of that is because we can only take evidence and experience so far, and then we have to leap that last little boundary of uncertainty as a sheer act of faith. Sometimes we do it consciously; often we do it unconsciously.

        IMO, our knowledge lies on a continuum, and there are very few things on the 100% mark. I know I exist with 100% certainty, because there is an I thinking it. Descrates had that part right! I know gravity is a force of nature with 99.99999% certainty. My experience and science tells me it is true, but there is that niggling little part of my brain that reminds me that sometimes science shows us something we thought was so obviously true was actually not true. I know my wife loves me with 99.99% certainty. I know god does not exist with 98% certainty. I know Mr. Trump is a vile human being with 95% certainty.

        I am facetiously making up numbers, but the point is, there is still a window of possibility that I could be wrong for most things I "know." I think you are (perhaps?) trying to equate knowledge with facts, and belief with faith. I thin the reality in our lives is far more muddled - more complex.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I think, perhaps, you draw too strong a line. I don't tend to think in these black/white terms. The primary definition of belief is: "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." The primary definition of knowledge is: "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."

          The words are almost identical in their meaning. If I believe that special relativity is true, it becomes part of my knowledge. When I say I know something, it is because I believe it to be true. Even the line between "fact" and "belief" is a little blurry. Most of that is because we can only take evidence and experience so far, and then we have to leap that last little boundary of uncertainty as a sheer act of faith. Sometimes we do it consciously; often we do it unconsciously.

          IMO, our knowledge lies on a continuum, and there are very few things on the 100% mark. I know I exist with 100% certainty, because there is an I thinking it. Descrates had that part right! I know gravity is a force of nature with 99.99999% certainty. My experience and science tells me it is true, but there is that niggling little part of my brain that reminds me that sometimes science shows us something we thought was so obviously true was actually not true. I know my wife loves me with 99.99% certainty. I know god does not exist with 98% certainty. I know Mr. Trump is a vile human being with 95% certainty.

          I am facetiously making up numbers, but the point is, there is still a window of possibility that I could be wrong for most things I "know." I think you are (perhaps?) trying to equate knowledge with facts, and belief with faith. I thin the reality in our lives is far more muddled - more complex.
          I agree with all of the above. As usual you make some valuable points. But the context was mattbballman31’s unqualified assertion that “We're non-divine minds. He's the only divine mind”. In this context I do not believe that his personal belief can be equated with factual knowledge...or any form of knowledge other than purely subjective belief.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            I agree with all of the above. As usual you make some valuable points. But the context was mattbballman31’s unqualified assertion that “We're non-divine minds. He's the only divine mind”. In this context I do not believe that his personal belief can be equated with factual knowledge...or any form of knowledge other than purely subjective belief.
            We'll the first half of the assertion certainly appears to be true.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • This thread continues to play in my mind. The argument against subjective/relative moralism has persisted for some time. But I have yet to find anyone who can make the argument without simply resorting to a tautology: subjective/relative moralism cannot work because it's not objective/absolute/eternal/universal. I'm curious to know if anyone can provide an argument against moral relativism/subjectivism that is NOT tautological?

              What I mean is this: the usual argument against moral relativism/subjectivism takes the form of "it lacks an objective/absolute/universal framework against which to measure what is truely mnoral." If you consider that argument for a moment, you will realize that it is nit actually an argument - it is a restatement of the definition of moral relativism/subjectivism. By definition, moral relativism/subjectivism lacks a universal/objective/eternal/absolute framework for determining moral good/evil. So this is not actually an argument - it's a restatement of a definition.

              So why is the lack of a universal/objective/eternal/absolute measurement a problem?
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                This thread continues to play in my mind. The argument against subjective/relative moralism has persisted for some time. But I have yet to find anyone who can make the argument without simply resorting to a tautology subjective/relative moralism cannot work because it's not objective/absolute/eternal/universal. I'm curious to know if anyone can provide an argument against moral relativism/subjectivism that is NOT tautological?

                What I mean is this: the usual argument against moral relativism/subjectivism takes the form of "it lacks an objective/absolute/universal framework against which to measure what is truely mnoral." If you consider that argument for a moment, you will realize that it is nit actually an argument - it is a restatement of the definition of moral relativism/subjectivism. By definition, moral relativism/subjectivism lacks a universal/objective/eternal/absolute framework for determining moral good/evil. So this is not actually an argument - it's a restatement of a definition.

                So why is the lack of a universal/objective/eternal/absolute measurement a problem?

                It really doesn't matter if it is tautology or not, the bottom line remains the same. No behavior or act is more logically valid than its opposite. That may be moral subjectivism by definition, but so what. Most people intuitively accept universal or absolute moral categories even if there may be questions as to what fills those categories. And these ideas are ancient going back to the oldest religions, to Plato to the moral realism of today, and nearly universal. So either our moral intuitions are correct or the evolutionary process once again caused a widespread deception.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  It really doesn't matter if it is tautology or not, the bottom line remains the same. No behavior or act is more logically valid than its opposite. That may be moral subjectivism by definition, but so what. Most people intuitively accept universal or absolute moral categories even if there may be questions as to what fills those categories. And these ideas are ancient going back to the oldest religions, to Plato to the moral realism of today, and nearly universal. So either our moral intuitions are correct or the evolutionary process once again caused a widespread deception.
                  That you would even suggest that a tautological argument has any substance, Seer, speaks a great deal to about the vacuousness of the argument being put forward. If the only argument is to repeatedly reassert the definition of the terms...then there is something wrong with the argument. I take that as a given.

                  Moral subjectivism/relativism has been described, shown how it functions day-to-day, and decribes how moral systems (even the ones that claim to be "absolute/universal/eternal") actually function. The only only objection remains: "it's not objective/universal/eternal/absolute."

                  When a position's only objection is that the opposing position is not aligned with the claim position (which is essentially an argument from "but, you don't agree with me!") - something is wrong.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    That you would even suggest that a tautological argument has any substance, Seer, speaks a great deal to about the vacuousness of the argument being put forward. If the only argument is to repeatedly reassert the definition of the terms...then there is something wrong with the argument. I take that as a given.
                    Did you completely miss my points? There is nothing vacuous about anything I said. If you are correct no behavior or moral position is logically more valid that its opposite. That is a fact.

                    Moral subjectivism/relativism has been described, shown how it functions day-to-day, and decribes how moral systems (even the ones that claim to be "absolute/universal/eternal") actually function. The only only objection remains: "it's not objective/universal/eternal/absolute."
                    That is pure bunk Carp because most people live in a world where they believe that there are moral absolutes or universals, largely religious but also non-religious, like with moral realism. The vast majority of humans don't believe in subjectivism and don't live their lives according to subjectivism. So subjectivism is not actually functioning...

                    When a position's only objection is that the opposing position is not aligned with the claim position (which is essentially an argument from "but, you don't agree with me!") - something is wrong.
                    No you disagree with the majority of mankind...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Did you completely miss my points? There is nothing vacuous about anything I said. If you are correct no behavior or moral position is logically more valid that its opposite. That is a fact.
                      I did not miss any of your points. I simply pointed out that it is a tautological argument - which is not an argument at all.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      That is pure bunk Carp because most people live in a world where they believe that there are moral absolutes or universals, largely religious but also non-religious, like with moral realism. The vast majority of humans don't believe in subjectivism and don't live their lives according to subjectivism. So subjectivism is not actually functioning...
                      No you disagree with the majority of mankind...
                      Most people once believed the earth was at the center of the universe. Most people once believed that earth, wind, fire, and water were the four basic elements. Most people once thought salvery was acceptable. Most people once though that Newtonian physics was how everything worked. What "most people" think is irrelevant. If your only argument is "most people think it," then you do not have an argument, Seer. An argument rises or falls on its merits - not on what "most people" think.

                      So far, as best I can tell, the only objection to moral relativism/subectivism is "it's not absolute/eternal/objective/universal." I'm looking to see if anyone has an actual argument - something more than just a mere re-assertion of the definition of the terms. I'm looking, in short, to challenge my own beliefs. So far, however, no one has anything else to offer.

                      Edited to add: Seer - my post was not really aimed at you. We have been around and around on this, and it is fairly clear, at this point, that your only argument is tautological in nature, and that you do not see that as a problem. We both agreed that the horse was pretty thoroughly kicked. I was primarily interested in seeing if anyone else had a different approach.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-17-2018, 04:42 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I did not miss any of your points. I simply pointed out that it is a tautological argument - which is not an argument at all.
                        And this is why I think your position is absurd. On moral questions, logically, there are no correct answers. It is not that we may struggle to find the right answer, there is no right answer, and there never could be.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And this is why I think your position is absurd. On moral questions, logically, there are no correct answers. It is not that we may struggle to find the right answer, there is no right answer, and there never could be.
                          Seed, we’ve been around this horn over and over. You just keep saying the same thing over and over: subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute/eternal/universal. As you noted, we’ve kicked that horse to death. I’m curious to see if anyone has an argument that is NOT a tautology. You’ve made it clear that you know you’re argument is a tautology and that does not matter to you. Repeating your position does not get us anywhere.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            We'll the first half of the assertion certainly appears to be true.
                            Agreed! It's the second half of the assertion that pushes the envelope.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And this is why I think your position is absurd. On moral questions, logically, there are no correct answers. It is not that we may struggle to find the right answer, there is no right answer, and there never could be.
                              Nevertheless there are useful answers. As a social species, if we are to live successfully among our fellows in a cohesive society, there are certain basic principles to which we must adhere. Namely empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking. These form the basis of the moral code among primates such as us.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                I agree with all of the above. As usual you make some valuable points. But the context was mattbballman31’s unqualified assertion that “We're non-divine minds. He's the only divine mind”. In this context I do not believe that his personal belief can be equated with factual knowledge...or any form of knowledge other than purely subjective belief.
                                Not just a personal belief. And what you think constitutes 'any form of knowledge' is laughably scientistic. Unless you want to qualify it? And just what do you want me to qualify about the fact that we're non-divine minds? That God, if He exists, is the only divine mind? This so-called unqualified assertion isn't just an assertion and it isn't immune to further qualification. And what about your unqualified assertion that what I believe about God isn't knowledge, and is just a purely subjective belief? You commit the same sins you accuse others of committing.
                                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                                George Horne

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X