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

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Well . . . after your lecture on the humility of a teacher, I suspected that if I took my time to break things down for you, I wouldn’t get the opposite reaction of being too wordy. You really are impossible to please. But I guess I’m just doomed to be a blade runner between these two complains: (1) say too little and be accused of cryptospeak, and (2) say too much and be accused of being wordy. Maybe I’ll find the Goldilocks middle-ground as the discussion proceeds.
    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.

    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Yep.

    This will relate to one strategy of motivating the objectivity of moral values and duties.

    Yep.

    Calling it baggage is pejorative. Philosophy is really cool in that we can discuss the pros and cons of the worldview, including any methodological assumptions that are driving it. If the discussion turns in that direction, it turns in that direction. I don’t see this as a reason for skepticism: not saying you’re saying it, but I’m feeling it as a kind of ‘pull’ in the way you’ve set this up.
    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.

    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    First, it’s not a problem. It’s a reflection of talking about deep issues in the real world. Reason cuts through by presenting arguments for or against various theses. Second, it’s an indispensable part of getting at the truth. Since we’re not a confluence of robotic inputs/outputs, we bring our subjective perspective to bear when assessing the veridicality of whatever thesis is under discussion.

    Another important point is that philosophical discussion has a ‘thickness’ to it. By that, I mean that the appropriation of such arguments (and the premises that constitute them) may take time to sink in, and that an immediate impulse to discard a premise for various reasons is typically the first step on the journey of a thousand miles. This applies to me based on what you present as well!

    Are we good, then? Do we agreed on method? If so, we'll get started!
    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...
    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


    • Matt - I invite you to go back and find any place where I have ever accused you of "saying too little."
      I’m not saying you said that explicitly. But the implication is that when I said what I said with the nomenclature it was ‘too little’. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, anyway. As far as wordiness, I really don’t care. If I look at your post back to me, and there’s this huge block of text, it doesn’t bother me at all.

      The fact is each of us carries the baggage of our existing worldview.
      Yep. Agreed. I just don’t think it’s a bad thing; that’s all I was saying. If you don’t think it’s bad, cool.

      I have no clue what "method" it is you think we've agreed on
      I didn’t say we agreed. I’m asking if we agree. The method involved in what is or isn’t a successful philosophical argument in the ‘wordy’ post is the method I’m talking about. What other method would there be in this conversation?
      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 carpedm9587 View Post


        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!
        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 mattbballman31 View Post
          I’m not saying you said that explicitly. But the implication is that when I said what I said with the nomenclature it was ‘too little’. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, anyway. As far as wordiness, I really don’t care. If I look at your post back to me, and there’s this huge block of text, it doesn’t bother me at all.

          Yep. Agreed. I just don’t think it’s a bad thing; that’s all I was saying. If you don’t think it’s bad, cool.

          I didn’t say we agreed. I’m asking if we agree. The method involved in what is or isn’t a successful philosophical argument in the ‘wordy’ post is the method I’m talking about. What other method would there be in this conversation?
          Assuming my briefer summary accurately reflects your "method," we're good.
          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 seer View Post
            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.
            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


            • My Case for Moral Objectivity

              The following are just the barebones of the arguments. This is where philosophy begins. So, don’t confuse the presentation of such arguments as the final word on the issue: the next step is a discussion of the plausibility of premises, as we discussed when we agreed on method. I suggest we pick one of these arguments, and I’ll leave it to you to pick. The point in presenting the arguments is that after we pick one, and we think the premises more plausible than their denials, their conclusions necessarily follow.

              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.

              This means that the objectivist doesn’t necessarily have to argue FOR objectivism because premise 1 is an exhaustive disjunction. All the objectivist needs to do is demonstrate that moral subjectivism is false (premise 2), and the conclusion necessarily follows.

              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.
              B. Evolutionary naturalism is true (assumption).
              C. Therefore, subjectivism cannot be rationally affirmed.
              D. But subjectivism can be rationally affirmed.
              E. Therefore, evolutionary naturalism is false (from A and D).

              This leads to a contradiction between B and E. Either evolutionary naturalism needs to be affirmed or denied. But if it is affirmed, you can’t rationally affirm subjectivism. If it is denied, you can’t use evolutionary naturalism to undermine moral intuitions regarding objective moral values.

              The Worldview Argument for Objective Moral Values

              4. If Christian Theism is true, Objective Moral Values exist.
              5. Christian Theism is true.
              6. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

              This is a strategy that argues for a worldview because it’s a necessarily implication of the worldview that certain metaphysical theses follow.

              The Epistemic Argument for Objective Moral Values

              7. If knowledge implies true belief, then moral knowledge of objective moral values implies the truth that objective moral values exist.
              8. Knowledge implies true belief.
              9. Therefore, moral knowledge of objective moral values implies the truth that objective moral values exist.

              Premise 7 has to do with what factors go to motivate how we know about objective moral values, and what follows metaphysically from one’s moral knowledge.

              The argument expands to the following:

              9.1. If we have defeasible (but undefeated) intuitions about objective moral values, then we have moral knowledge regarding objective moral values.
              9.2. We have defeasible (but undefeatable) intuitions about objective moral values.
              9.3. Therefore, we have moral knowledge regarding objective moral values.

              From 9 and 9.3., it follows that

              9.4. Moral knowledge regarding objective moral values implies that objective moral values exist.

              Two possible argument used to motivate 9.2 are:

              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.
              Last edited by mattbballman31; 11-14-2018, 09:39 PM.
              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 carpedm9587 View Post
                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.
                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 mattbballman31 View Post
                  The following are just the barebones of the arguments. This is where philosophy begins. So, don’t confuse the presentation of such arguments as the final word on the issue: the next step is a discussion of the plausibility of premises, as we discussed when we agreed on method. I suggest we pick one of these arguments, and I’ll leave it to you to pick. The point in presenting the arguments is that after we pick one, and we think the premises more plausible than their denials, their conclusions necessarily follow.

                  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.


                  This means that the objectivist doesn’t necessarily have to argue FOR objectivism because premise 1 is an exhaustive disjunction. All the objectivist needs to do is demonstrate that moral subjectivism is false (premise 2), and the conclusion necessarily follows.

                  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.
                  B. Evolutionary naturalism is true (assumption).
                  C. Therefore, subjectivism cannot be rationally affirmed.
                  D. But subjectivism can be rationally affirmed.
                  E. Therefore, evolutionary naturalism is false (from A and D).

                  This leads to a contradiction between B and E. Either evolutionary naturalism needs to be affirmed or denied. But if it is affirmed, you can’t rationally affirm subjectivism. If it is denied, you can’t use evolutionary naturalism to undermine moral intuitions regarding objective moral values.

                  The Worldview Argument for Objective Moral Values

                  4. If Christian Theism is true, Objective Moral Values exist.
                  5. Christian Theism is true.
                  6. Therefore, objective moral values exist.

                  This is a strategy that argues for a worldview because it’s a necessarily implication of the worldview that certain metaphysical theses follow.

                  The Epistemic Argument for Objective Moral Values

                  7. If knowledge implies true belief, then moral knowledge of objective moral values implies the truth that objective moral values exist.
                  8. Knowledge implies true belief.
                  9. Therefore, moral knowledge of objective moral values implies the truth that objective moral values exist.

                  Premise 7 has to do with what factors go to motivate how we know about objective moral values, and what follows metaphysically from one’s moral knowledge.

                  The argument expands to the following:

                  9.1. If we have defeasible (but undefeated) intuitions about objective moral values, then we have moral knowledge regarding objective moral values.
                  9.2. We have defeasible (but undefeatable) intuitions about objective moral values.
                  9.3. Therefore, we have moral knowledge regarding objective moral values.

                  From 9 and 9.3., it follows that

                  9.4. Moral knowledge regarding objective moral values implies that objective moral values exist.

                  Two possible argument used to motivate 9.2 are:

                  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, "the objectivist doesn’t necessarily have to argue FOR objectivism because premise 1 is an exhaustive disjunction. All the objectivist needs to do is demonstrate that moral subjectivism is false (premise 2), and the conclusion necessarily follows."

                  So go for it. Prove #2 is false.

                  Michel
                  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 mattbballman31 View Post
                    I suggest we pick one of these arguments, and I’ll leave it to you to pick. The point in presenting the arguments is that after we pick one, and we think the premises more plausible than their denials, their conclusions necessarily follow.
                    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.
                    Last edited by Roy; 11-20-2018, 07:25 AM.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      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...
                      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 Roy View Post
                        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?
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          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"?
                          Last edited by Roy; 11-21-2018, 06:48 AM.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            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.
                            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 Starlight View Post
                              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...
                              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
                                Anything that is subjective to one person will be objective to another.
                                Including moral values, presumably. Therefore they may be both objective and subjective.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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