Nitpicky? Hell yes.
Started by Inevitable Droid, November 23, 2010, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: "bandit4god"There may be a meta-argument we are overlooking here. If you don't believe in the objective moral quality of honesty, why are you debating with eachother at all?
QuoteThe fact that this forum exists and that we are all trying to persuade each other of our respective opinion is that we place an objective moral truth value on being correct.
QuoteSomething like, "it is objectively morally better to say something true than something untrue on the Happy Atheist Forum." Why? Do you guys and gals ever wonder where that assignment of objective moral goodness to intellectual correctness comes from?
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Quote from: "hackenslash"Morality objectively exists, but not objective moralty.There. That was useful to me in clarifying matters. Frankly, I always have doubted that objective morality objectively existed, but I couldn't precisely and coherently articulate why, and that bugged me. I would paraphrase your statement as, "Subjective morality objectively exists. That which claims to be objective morality is really subjective morality making false claims, which means it objectively exists but is in error as to its its own nature. Non-erroneous objective morality does not objectively exist."I fully agree with your original statement, and with my paraphrase.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Morality objectively exists, but not objective moralty.
QuoteThe remaining question is whether subjective morality can be binding in an absolute, universal sense. I raise that question on my Subjectivism thread.
Quote from: "Sophus"I don't know if it's too late for me to jump in on this thread or not but I don't think an Objective Morality could exist without or with God. Morals are always abstractions.
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Quote from: "Sophus"I don't know if it's too late for me to jump in on this thread or not but I don't think an Objective Morality could exist without or with God. Morals are always abstractions.Yes. Amazingly, perhaps, there have been philosophers who recognized that morals are always abstractions, and yet still, nevertheless, claimed objective existence for these abstractions. Plato, for example, posited his Ideal Forms, which included among their number, the Ideal Form of the Good. Plato imagined an actual realm where these Ideal Forms actually existed, with the realm and its denizens being more real, not less real, than our physical Earth. I frankly think any philosopher who claims the existence of non-erroneous moral objectivity should be made to state whether Plato was right or wrong, and if the answer is, Plato was wrong, the philosopher being questioned should be probed very closely as to precisely why and how Plato was wrong. It is my assessment that either Plato was right or else non-erroneous moral objectivity doesn't exist. I claim that Plato was wrong, because his alleged realm of Ideal Forms is on principle unavailable to empiricism, and I reject on principle anything unavailable to empiricism, with two exceptions, mathematics and formal logic. Non-erroneous moral objectivity could only exist if mathematics or formal logic made normative demands on behavior, and neither of them does. They stipulate what must be true, not what must be done. Add empiricism to these to make a triptych, within the boundaries of which all truth is circumscribed, and normative demands on behavior are nowhere to be found.