News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Axioms of Objective Morality

Started by Inevitable Droid, November 23, 2010, 10:11:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

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?

In my case, I'm trying to get at truth, which, in this instance, would more specifically be clarity and coherence.  I value these things, not because the universe does, if it does, and not because scientists and philosophers do, although they certainly do, but simply because, when I contemplate these things, I am drawn to them, and when I contemplate their opposites, I am repelled.

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.

Not in my case.  As a matter of fact, I place a great deal of importance on the strength of character demonstrated by someone who says, "Oh!  Good point!  You're right.  I wasn't thinking clearly.  You've convinced me to think differently."

Winning debates is too trivial a goal for me to waste time on.  Death is always waiting.  In the face of my impending doom, I can't be bothered with trivia.  But truth, clarity, coherence - these are pursuits I can wave under the nose of that spectral harvester, as if to say, "These.  These are how I beat you.  You brought an end to me, but not before I brought a beginning to these."

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?

Oh.  Are you trying to say it comes from God?  There's no need for that hypothesis.  Humans apparently have what I'll call, loosely, unscientifically, a morality gene.  We have lots of genes.  Shall we claim the ones we like come from God, the one we don't like come from the devil, and the ones we're indifferent toward come from chance?  Better by far to say that all the genes come from natural selection's forebearance and mutation's bounty.

If I were to consider the hypothesis of God's existence, I would conclude that he was performing experiments, this world his laboratory, and us creatures his guinea pigs.  If I decided then to honor my maker, I would do so by advocating the practice of performing experiments, and all the rest of what it means to do science.  This is what it really would mean to have the image and likeness of God, if it meant anything.  It surely wouldn't mean benevolence or fairness, for neither benevolent nor fair are the ways of the wild.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

hackenslash

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.

No argument there.

QuoteThe remaining question is whether subjective morality can be binding in an absolute, universal sense.  I raise that question on my Subjectivism thread.

Now that really is a thorny question. In order to answer it, we'd need to be able to study a much larger sample set of allegedly moral entities, and to see whether their morality matched ours. I have a feeling that the answer to this question will still be no, not least because we can't really agree amongst ourselves what constitutes morality, although that may just be a matter of education.

In reality, I am a relativist in this sense. I think my morality is superior, but I do recognise that that's largely a matter of opinion.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

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.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

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.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Sophus

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.
Very well written! I completely agree. It's ironic that Plato was also interested in forms of mathematics and logic. Perhaps that's what led him to idealizing everything else.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver