• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

devildavid said:
Scientists are not motivated by the same kind of belief that philosophers and religious are.
Click to expand...
Not so much.

A belief is a statement about the world that someone holds to be true. It's a generic term.

When a scientist is starting her investigations, she doesn't know the answer; she has a belief which may or may not be correct. If she knew the answer already, she wouldn't need to perform an experiment. When she runs the experiment, the evidence will either confirm the belief, or partly confirm it, or disprove it. Hopefully, she will adjust her beliefs appropriately.

When a philosopher starts her investigation, she doesn't know the answer; she has beliefs which may or may not be correct. If she knew the answer already, she wouldn't need to investigate the issue. When she analyzes the issues using various philosophical methods, her beliefs will either be confirmed, or partly confirmed, or disproven. Hopefully, she will adjust her beliefs appropriately.

Theologians are not the same. They must start and end with the premise that "God exists" (and, in some cases, "canonical texts are correct") and work backwards from there. They may hold certain beliefs at the start, and examine those beliefs, and change those beliefs in the course of investigation; however, there are borders that generally cannot be crossed. Philosophers have no such limits; anything is open to inquiry.

So if the problem is that "the investigation is motivated by beliefs," then this is just as much a problem for scientists, and historians, and doctors, and pretty much everyone as it is for philosophers. Which is to say, not really a problem, as long as they are willing to critically examine their own views. And there is plenty of evidence that philosophers do this to each other, as well as to themselves.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
Not so much.

A belief is a statement about the world that someone holds to be true. It's a generic term.

When a scientist is starting her investigations, she doesn't know the answer; she has a belief which may or may not be correct. If she knew the answer already, she wouldn't need to perform an experiment. When she runs the experiment, the evidence will either confirm the belief, or partly confirm it, or disprove it. Hopefully, she will adjust her beliefs appropriately.

When a philosopher starts her investigation, she doesn't know the answer; she has beliefs which may or may not be correct. If she knew the answer already, she wouldn't need to investigate the issue. When she analyzes the issues using various philosophical methods, her beliefs will either be confirmed, or partly confirmed, or disproven. Hopefully, she will adjust her beliefs appropriately.

Theologians are not the same. They must start and end with the premise that "God exists" (and, in some cases, "canonical texts are correct") and work backwards from there. They may hold certain beliefs at the start, and examine those beliefs, and change those beliefs in the course of investigation; however, there are borders that generally cannot be crossed. Philosophers have no such limits; anything is open to inquiry.

So if the problem is that "the investigation is motivated by beliefs," then this is just as much a problem for scientists, and historians, and doctors, and pretty much everyone as it is for philosophers. Which is to say, not really a problem, as long as they are willing to critically examine their own views. And there is plenty of evidence that philosophers do this to each other, as well as to themselves.
Click to expand...

No, religious belief and philosophical belief are very specific types of belief and not generic at all.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

zyzygy said:
Well what do you know!
Click to expand...

I'd like to be able to just say Rorty.

But you know how that goes.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Visbek said:
It appears that you don't understand analyticity. "All bachelors are unmarried" is an analytic statement, meaning (in a far too brief explanation) the truth or falsity is based on the definitions of the term. In order to evaluate the truth of "all bachelors are married," we already have to know what a bachelor is, and part of the definition is that a bachelor is unmarried. "Precision" is not the issue. The analytic statement is "meaningless" in the sense that it does not tell us anything about the world.

In contrast, a synthetic statement is one where the truth or falsity is based on what is actually in the world. E.g. "bachelors are sad" is a synthetic statement which (if true) tells us something that is not contained in the definition of the term "bachelor," and tells us something meaningful about the world.

To put it mildly: You need to understand this distinction in order to evaluate the veracity of the OQA.

I don't see how you are in a position to know what the OQA does or does not accomplish.
Click to expand...

No, it's a definition, and therefore it's a truism. Trying to use that as a sample is just plain stupid.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Versus an individual who actually knows what he's talking about we must needs suffer a limited variety of fools gladly in the name of the technologically empowered entitlement we all know and love.
Vive la différence!*

*["long live the difference"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vive_la_différence]
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
Versus an individual who actually knows what he's talking about we must needs suffer a limited variety of fools gladly in the name of the technologically empowered entitlement we all know and love.
Vive la différence!*

*["long live the difference"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vive_la_différence]
Click to expand...

More broad brush ad hominem I see. You need to up your game.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
Versus an individual who actually knows what he's talking about we must needs suffer a limited variety of fools gladly in the name of the technologically empowered entitlement we all know and love.
Vive la différence!*

*["long live the difference"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vive_la_différence]
Click to expand...
If you believe in objective morality name one and explain why it is objective without using your subjective opinion
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]


1f0i4uA.jpg
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

RAMOSS said:
I will notice you acknowledge that not even moral realists will agree with each other. And the reason I didn't talk about Moore's open question is that it's based on 'begging the question', and is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Visbek said:
lol

Guess what? Moral anti-realists disagree with each other, too. I never said that all moral realists (or anti-realists) adhere to one highly specific set of positions. Why do you think that is significant?



Or, not. Consider the following:

- If we can demonstrate that "bravery is good" is analytically true, then the question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is meaningless.
- The question "Is it true that bravery is good?" is not meaningless.
- Therefore, it is not analytically true that "bravery is good."

- If we can demonstrate that "all bachelors are unmarried" is analytically true, then the question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- The question "are all bachelors unmarried?" is meaningless.
- Therefore, it is analytically true that "all bachelors are unmarried."

The 2nd premise in both of these syllogisms does not beg the question; it illustrates the point. Unless, of course, you can prove that "it is true that bravery is good?" is analytically true.

There are valid objections to the OQA, but allegations that it begs the question clearly falls flat, and is not one of them. Of course, the OQA is just a tiny part of the discussion around moral realism, and even a full discussion of the OQA may be a bit much for a web forum. (E.g. a quick overview takes DeLapp around 8 pages.)
Click to expand...

RAMOSS seems to think that everything of which doesn't agree with the point of view that he holds is a logical fallacy...
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Quag said:
If you believe in objective morality name one and explain why it is objective without using your subjective opinion
Click to expand...

This is once again confusing ontology and epistemology...

The bolded part is getting into a purely epistemological discussion about morality (how right/wrong is "known"), of which you might also be confusing the term "objective" with "absolute".

I'm interested in the ontological discussion of morality... as in, where do morals come from and what gives them their meaning (or, in other words, what "grounds" morality).
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

gfm7175 said:
RAMOSS seems to think that everything of which doesn't agree with the point of view that he holds is a logical fallacy...
Click to expand...

Not at all. However, your arguments have logical fallacies quite large in them. Most metaphysical arguments do.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

gfm7175 said:
This is once again confusing ontology and epistemology...

The bolded part is getting into a purely epistemological discussion about morality (how right/wrong is "known"), of which you might also be confusing the term "objective" with "absolute".

I'm interested in the ontological discussion of morality... as in, where do morals come from and what gives them their meaning (or, in other words, what "grounds" morality).
Click to expand...

There is no logical ontological argument for objective morality
lacking any actual argument for objective morality we are left with what actually exists subjective morality.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Quag said:
There is no logical ontological argument for objective morality
lacking any actual argument for objective morality we are left with what actually exists subjective morality.
Click to expand...

There is no logical ontological argument for subjective morality.
Lacking any actual argument for subjective morality, we are left with what actually exists, objective morality.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

gfm7175 said:
There is no logical ontological argument for subjective morality.
Lacking any actual argument for subjective morality, we are left with what actually exists, objective morality.
Click to expand...

Humans have used morality subjectively throughout history there is no case of objective morals ever provided.
There is no valid ontological argument or any other type of argument for objective morals, they exist purely in your imagination which makes your "objective" morals subjective..
Seriously gfm we have remained fairly polite to each other but neither you nor anyone else has ever made any valid argument for objective morals every single attempt has always had a subjective basis making the end result subjective not objective.
Feel free to try and make an argument but until then you have nothing but your unsupported subjective opinion.


D
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

gfm7175 said:
This is once again confusing ontology and epistemology...

The bolded part is getting into a purely epistemological discussion about morality (how right/wrong is "known"), of which you might also be confusing the term "objective" with "absolute".

I'm interested in the ontological discussion of morality... as in, where do morals come from and what gives them their meaning (or, in other words, what "grounds" morality).
Click to expand...

Again I compliment your patience and tenacity, gfm. Especially as these jolly interlocutors of yours are unwittingly falling back on a convenient solipsism in order to post in contradiction to both you and Visbek, totally unaware that their opportunistic ad hoc argument in this case in fact undermines all of their arguments for physicalism, atheism, Biblical exegesis and the rest of their hobbyhorses. Did the Sermon on the Mount say anything about the clueless? ;)
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
Again I compliment your patience and tenacity, gfm. Especially as these jolly interlocutors of yours are unwittingly falling back on a convenient solipsism in order to post in contradiction to both you and Visbek, totally unaware that their opportunistic ad hoc argument in this case in fact undermines all of their arguments for physicalism, atheism, Biblical exegesis and the rest of their hobbyhorses. Did the Sermon on the Mount say anything about the clueless? ;)
Click to expand...

Once again, the broad brush ad hominem and nothing of substance.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

devildavid said:
Once again, the broad brush ad hominem and nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
Once again you confound ad hominem and ad hypothesem, applying the wrong brush to persistent misunderstanding.
Look to it.

Namaste.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Quag said:
Humans have used morality subjectively throughout history there is no case of objective morals ever provided.
Click to expand...
It seems to me like you have been asserting that epistemological differences means that morality itself is inherently subjective.

We agree with each other that there definitely are epistemological differences when speaking of morality itself, and that those epistemological differences are definitely subjective, BUT where I assert your logic fails you is when you conclude from those differences that the ontological status (grounding) of morality itself is subjective. Even given every epistemological difference, morality itself could still just as easily be objective instead of subjective.

Quag said:
There is no valid ontological argument or any other type of argument for objective morals, they exist purely in your imagination which makes your "objective" morals subjective..
Click to expand...
Your disagreement with the conclusion of an argument does not make that argument invalid.

Quag said:
Seriously gfm we have remained fairly polite to each other
Click to expand...
Yes we have. That is because we both have been having a sincere discussion, and we both desire to find "truth" (instead of merely insulting each others' positions)

Quag said:
but neither you nor anyone else has ever made any valid argument for objective morals
Click to expand...
I disagree. While you may not be convinced that God exists, or convinced that morality could be objective even IF God exists, that does not mean that my (our) arguments aren't valid arguments. As Visbek has said many times, providing all the support for all the complex ideas involved is too big of a scope for a web forum.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
Again I compliment your patience and tenacity, gfm. Especially as these jolly interlocutors of yours are unwittingly falling back on a convenient solipsism in order to post in contradiction to both you and Visbek, totally unaware that their opportunistic ad hoc argument in this case in fact undermines all of their arguments for physicalism, atheism, Biblical exegesis and the rest of their hobbyhorses.
Click to expand...
Thanks once again, and you're definitely right about all that. Visbek has definitely studied up on these things quite a bit. He has much more intelligence and understanding than me anyway.
Angel said:
Did the Sermon on the Mount say anything about the clueless? ;)
Click to expand...
It sure did! ;)
It said that if you build a house without a solid foundation, the rain and wind will cause it to come crashing down.

That's why morality becomes chaotic and "crashes down" when it is subjectively rooted... subjective morality is rooted in a weak foundation... A strong foundation in God's nature (an objective and transcendent rooting) keeps morality orderly and "upright" amongst mankind's epistemological quibbles.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

gfm7175 said:
Thanks once again, and you're definitely right about all that. Visbek has definitely studied up on these things quite a bit. He has much more intelligence and understanding than me anyway.

It sure did! ;)
It said that if you build a house without a solid foundation, the rain and wind will cause it to come crashing down.

That's why morality becomes chaotic and "crashes down" when it is subjectively rooted... subjective morality is rooted in a weak foundation... A strong foundation in God's nature (an objective and transcendent rooting) keeps morality orderly and "upright" amongst mankind's epistemological quibbles.
Click to expand...

Human history is enough evidence that the various made up gods morality has not done the job.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
Once again you confound ad hominem and ad hypothesem, applying the wrong brush to persistent misunderstanding.
Look to it.

Namaste.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you call your method of general insults.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

devildavid said:
I don't care what you call your method of general insults.
Click to expand...
What you mean is that you don't care to understand what you reply to. Bene.
How's that working out for you?

Namaste.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222]

Angel said:
What you mean is that you don't care to understand what you reply to. Bene.
How's that working out for you?

Namaste.
Click to expand...

Still with the insults. Par for the course with all these god people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom