Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Matt - I invite you to go back and find any place where I have ever accused you of "saying too little." Your posts lean towards wordy (as mine do - so I plead guilty) AND cryptospeak (which I tend to try not to do). I'm not actually not that hard to please, my friend. Speak plainly. That's all it takes. I am myself guilty of wordiness - so I really cannot complain about yours without acknowledging my own.

Well - maybe "baggage" is a pejorative to some - but I am a serious traveler for work and pleasure. "Baggage" is simply a necessary part of the scene. I need it - and I likewise dislike carrying it. Pejorative? Only if you don't travel much. The fact is each of us carries the baggage of our existing worldview. We cannot unload it - it is part of how we function - but we CAN (with a bit of effort) trim it and adjust it when it becomes bloated or unnecessary. Perhaps we will do so here.

I have no clue what "method" it is you think we've agreed on - but I'm perfectly willing to hear you out and consider the points presented. Back to you, Phil...

[mattbballman31]

Matt - I invite you to go back and find any place where I have ever accused you of "saying too little."

The fact is each of us carries the baggage of our existing worldview.

I have no clue what "method" it is you think we've agreed on

[seer]

I have no clue what "method" it is you think we've agreed on - but I'm perfectly willing to hear you out and consider the points presented. Back to you, Phil...

This is exactly what I mean, nit pick. Just get on with it! You too Matt, I really want to see your argument, and I'm sure other lurkers do to. Remember Carp is not your only audience!

[carpedm9587]

Assuming my briefer summary accurately reflects your "method," we're good.

[carpedm9587]

This is exactly what I mean, nit pick. Just get on with it! You too Matt, I really want to see your argument, and I'm sure other lurkers do to. Remember Carp is not your only audience!

Nit pick? What part of that post is "nit picking?" When I don't understand something, I say "I have no idea what your trying to say." If that's nit picking, I suggest you pull up your big boy pants because I am likely to say that more than once, especially with Matt's posting style.

[mattbballman31]

Arguments for Objective Moral values.


A Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values
The Evolutionary Argument Against Subjectivism
The Worldview Argument for Objective Moral Values
The Epistemic Argument for Objective Moral Values
The Argument from Moral Reformers

10. If there are objective moral reformations, then objective moral values exist.
11. There are objective moral reformations (intuition)
12. Objective moral values exist.

The Argument from Evil

13. If there are objectively evil states of affairs, then objective moral values exist.
14. There are objectively evil states of affairs (intuition).
15. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

The Argument from Moral Disagreement

16. If there is genuine moral disagreement, then moral argument is a rational enterprise.
17. There is genuine moral disagreement.
18. Therefore, moral argument is a rational enterprise.
19. If moral argument is a rational enterprise, then there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement.
20. Moral argument is a rational enterprise.
21. Therefore, there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement.
22. If there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement, then objective moral values exist.
23. Therefore, objective moral values exist (from 20 and 21).

The Argument from Moral Praise and Blame

24. If moral praise and blame objectively attach to the values and actions of moral agents in morally relevant states of affairs, then objective moral values exist.
25. Moral praise and blame objectively attach to the values and actions of moral agents in morally relevant states of affairs (intuition).
26. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

[mattbballman31]

Nit pick? What part of that post is "nit picking?" When I don't understand something, I say "I have no idea what your trying to say." If that's nit picking, I suggest you pull up your big boy pants because I am likely to say that more than once, especially with Matt's posting style.

Trust me. I don't care how much you nit pick; if it looks constructive, cool. If you repeat nonsense like Shunya or Tassman, then (worst case scenario) I just end the conversation. No big deal.

[carpedm9587]

Arguments for Objective Moral values.


A Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values

1. Either moral values are objective or moral are subjective.
2. Moral values are not subjective.
3. Therefore, moral values are objective.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Subjectivism
The Worldview Argument for Objective Moral Values
The Epistemic Argument for Objective Moral Values
The Argument from Moral Reformers

10. If there are objective moral reformations, then objective moral values exist.
11. There are objective moral reformations (intuition)
12. Objective moral values exist.

The Argument from Evil

13. If there are objectively evil states of affairs, then objective moral values exist.
14. There are objectively evil states of affairs (intuition).
15. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

The Argument from Moral Disagreement

16. If there is genuine moral disagreement, then moral argument is a rational enterprise.
17. There is genuine moral disagreement.
18. Therefore, moral argument is a rational enterprise.
19. If moral argument is a rational enterprise, then there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement.
20. Moral argument is a rational enterprise.
21. Therefore, there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement.
22. If there are objectively true or false solutions to moral disagreement, then objective moral values exist.
23. Therefore, objective moral values exist (from 20 and 21).

The Argument from Moral Praise and Blame

24. If moral praise and blame objectively attach to the values and actions of moral agents in morally relevant states of affairs, then objective moral values exist.
25. Moral praise and blame objectively attach to the values and actions of moral agents in morally relevant states of affairs (intuition).
26. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

I certainly don't have the time to respond to all of this in one go. You said "pick one," so I guess we might as well start at the top.

A Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values

1. Either moral values are objective or moral are subjective.
2. Moral values are not subjective.
3. Therefore, moral values are objective.

You correctly note that,

So go for it. Prove #2 is false.

Michel

[Roy]

I'll pick this one:

Arguments for Objective Moral values.


A Disjunctive Argument for Objective Moral Values

1. Either moral values are objective or moral are subjective.

False. Despite your later claim, this is not exhaustive.

Either
- moral values are objective
- moral values are subjective
- some moral values are objective, some are subjective
- moral values are both objective and subjective
- moral values are sometimes objective and sometimes subjective, depending on time and/or circumstances.
- objectivity/subjectivity is inapplicable to moral values
- there are no moral values
- anything else I've omitted.

You've missed out several of these possibilities, and probably others too.

2. Moral values are not subjective.

Assuming your conclusion. You might as well have written:

Argument for Objecive Moral Values.
1. Moral values are objective.

However, I see an argument for this below:

An example of an argument for 2 would something like the following:

The Evolutionary Argument Against Subjectivism

A. If evolutionary naturalism is true, then subjectivism cannot be rationally affirmed.

Why not? This is just an unsupported assertion. There is no reason to accept it.

[carpedm9587]

I'll pick this one:False. Despite your later claim, this is not exhaustive.

Either
- moral values are objective
- moral values are subjective
- some moral values are objective, some are subjective
- moral values are both objective and subjective
- moral values are sometimes objective and sometimes subjective, depending on time and/or circumstances.
- objectivity/subjectivity is inapplicable to moral values
- there are no moral values
- anything else I've omitted.

You've missed out several of these possibilities, and probably others too.

Assuming your conclusion. You might as well have written:

Argument for Objecive Moral Values.
1. Moral values are objective.

However, I see an argument for this below:Why not? This is just an unsupported assertion. There is no reason to accept it.

So can you give me an example of a moral value that is both subjective and objective? I'm having a hard time following this...

[Starlight]

I'll pick this one:False. Despite your later claim, this is not exhaustive.

Either
- moral values are objective
- moral values are subjective
- some moral values are objective, some are subjective
- moral values are both objective and subjective
- moral values are sometimes objective and sometimes subjective, depending on time and/or circumstances.
- objectivity/subjectivity is inapplicable to moral values
- there are no moral values
- anything else I've omitted.

You've missed out several of these possibilities, and probably others too.

Well a big possibility that is not nearly well enough known or discussed enough, IMO, is intersubjectivity.

For those unfamiliar with the term, it could be described as "group consensus" / "cultural", as opposed to subjective (a single person's view) or objective (an inherent characteristic of the world). So, for example, language is intersubjective. The spelling of a word and meaning of that word are determined by the consensus of the group of people who use that shared language. One group might spell the word "colour" with a u, and another group might spell it without the u, and a given spelling is right or wrong in the context of that group. But, I don't get to myself declare that the true spelling of the word is "kolor", because it's not up to me alone (it's not subjective) but neither is it some great truth that exists out there in the universe (objective), rather it's a consensus agreement among people in a particular group (English-speakers) about how the word is to be spelled (i.e. it's intersubjective).

All cultural constructs, by virtue of being cultural constructs, are intersubjective. So in practice all cultures' moral codes are intersubjective. I'm not making any claim here about whether they are based on underlying objective realities or not, I'm just saying that insofar as any given culture has something that could be called a 'moral code', that moral code exists intersubjectively within the culture.

So we can say from simple observation that all cultures' moral codes are at least intersubjective cultural constructs. The question of to what extent they are based on underlying objective realities in the world, or to what extent they could be based on such, or even should be, is a different and interesting question. e.g. if a god really objectively existed and had opinions with regard to human actions, to what extent would it be viable or sensible to try and base a society's moral code on that god's opinions given our limited knowledge of it and dissenting views about what those opinions were, and to what extent would this be useful for our society to do and why, etc?

[Roy]

So can you give me an example of a moral value that is both subjective and objective? I'm having a hard time following this...

Anything imposed on a population by a deity's whim could be objective to the population but subjective to the deity. Perhaps "Thou shalt have no other god before me"?

[carpedm9587]

Anything imposed on a population by a deity's whim could be objective to the population but subjective to the deity. Perhaps "Thou shalt have no other god before me"?

Anything that is subjective to one person will be objective to another. Your love of pizza is a subjective reality to you (i.e., it is a preference formed on the basis of your personal opinions and tastes). That you love pizza is objectively true to me (i.e., your love of pizza is not influenced by my opinions or tastes). A contradiction only occurs when a things is simultaneously claimed to be true and false in the same way at the same time and in the same place.

"It is raining" can be simultaneously true and false - as long as we're not talking about the same place and time and the same definition of "raining." As soon as we agree on what "raining" is, the statement cannot be true AND false in the same place at the same time.

[carpedm9587]

Well a big possibility that is not nearly well enough known or discussed enough, IMO, is intersubjectivity.

For those unfamiliar with the term, it could be described as "group consensus" / "cultural", as opposed to subjective (a single person's view) or objective (an inherent characteristic of the world). So, for example, language is intersubjective. The spelling of a word and meaning of that word are determined by the consensus of the group of people who use that shared language. One group might spell the word "colour" with a u, and another group might spell it without the u, and a given spelling is right or wrong in the context of that group. But, I don't get to myself declare that the true spelling of the word is "kolor", because it's not up to me alone (it's not subjective) but neither is it some great truth that exists out there in the universe (objective), rather it's a consensus agreement among people in a particular group (English-speakers) about how the word is to be spelled (i.e. it's intersubjective).

All cultural constructs, by virtue of being cultural constructs, are intersubjective. So in practice all cultures' moral codes are intersubjective. I'm not making any claim here about whether they are based on underlying objective realities or not, I'm just saying that insofar as any given culture has something that could be called a 'moral code', that moral code exists intersubjectively within the culture.

So we can say from simple observation that all cultures' moral codes are at least intersubjective cultural constructs. The question of to what extent they are based on underlying objective realities in the world, or to what extent they could be based on such, or even should be, is a different and interesting question. e.g. if a god really objectively existed and had opinions with regard to human actions, to what extent would it be viable or sensible to try and base a society's moral code on that god's opinions given our limited knowledge of it and dissenting views about what those opinions were, and to what extent would this be useful for our society to do and why, etc?

Not t mention it gets really dicey when you don't think that god actually exists...

[Roy]

Anything that is subjective to one person will be objective to another.

Including moral values, presumably. Therefore they may be both objective and subjective.