• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Morality and Atheism

Ikari said:
OMGWTFBBQ111one!!11one!11
Click to expand...


Ikari you did exactly what I said you would do. You have yet to give anything other than 'well you can't rule it out' even in the face of scrutiny, and after countless practical applications and examples I have provided.

Give me something other than that if you really believe it can't be ruled out. I want to see at least a paragraph explaining your position. Convince me.
 
Ikari said:
It could, there's no basis through which it can be ruled out. But no, that wasn't what I was proving. K=P claimed that he had proven that objective morality did not exist; I merely pointed out that he in fact did no such thing.
Click to expand...

Yes and seeing as we're both atheists yet "god" could exist. There's no basis which "god" could technically be ruled out, either - albeit unlikely.

Knowledge=power said:
zgold, don't waste your time.

Pick a wall in your house, and argue with that instead.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Ikari is one of my favorite posters on the forum and is quite intelligent.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Give me something other than that if you really believe it can't be ruled out. I want to see at least a paragraph explaining your position. Convince me.
Click to expand...

My claim is that YOU haven't ruled it out. Nothing else. Your arguments fail to support your ultimate conclusion, and that has been demonstrated. Just because you want to move goal posts and try to make it seem like you haven't presented a series of foolish arguments which cannot support the conclusion you try to make doesn't mean you should come after me and get all mad just because I have shown your arguments do not hold water.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Yes and seeing as we're both atheists yet "god" could exist. There's no basis which "god" could technically be ruled out, either - albeit unlikely.
Click to expand...

I agree with that as well, you can't rule out the possibility of gods. I don't particularly believe in one; but it's not a measurable system so knowledge cannot be professed.
 
Ikari said:
My claim is that YOU haven't ruled it out. Nothing else. Your arguments fail to support your ultimate conclusion, and that has been demonstrated. Just because you want to move goal posts and try to make it seem like you haven't presented a series of foolish arguments which cannot support the conclusion you try to make doesn't mean you should come after me and get all mad just because I have shown your arguments do not hold water.
Click to expand...

YOU have failed to give anything in SUPPPORT of your BS claim!
 
Ikari said:
Oh no, I have clearly shown how your argument doesn't support your ultimate claim.
Click to expand...

......unbelievable.

I want YOU to support YOUR claim, not rebut mine.

Can you do that....?

I'm sacrificing my last bit of patience to wait for it.
 
Knowledge=power said:
......unbelievable.

I want YOU to support YOUR claim, not rebut mine.

Can you do that....?

I'm sacrificing my last bit of patience to wait for it.
Click to expand...

Sacrifice away. I've told you time and time again what my claim was. And it was that you did not prove objective morality cannot exist. And on that front, I have demonstrated just that.

You're the one trying to make my claim be something else, it's illogical why you continue on that path; but whatever. I won't rise to your little goal shifting just because you're pissed that you tried to say something that you couldn't back up.
 
Ikari said:
Sacrifice away. I've told you time and time again what my claim was. And it was that you did not prove objective morality cannot exist. And on that front, I have demonstrated just that.
Click to expand...


But you have not backed it up!


Ikari said:
You're the one trying to make my claim be something else, it's illogical why you continue on that path; but whatever. I won't rise to your little goal shifting just because you're pissed that you tried to say something that you couldn't back up.
Click to expand...

Everything I've said I've attempted to back up! Read the previous posts. All I want is for YOU to back up YOUR claim! This shouldn't be this hard lol.
 
Knowledge=power said:
But you have not backed it up!
Click to expand...

But I have. I explained exactly why your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry. But that's reality. Be as pissed as you want, it won't change reality. It's a measured system, the wavefunction is collapsed.
 
Ikari said:
But I have. I explained exactly why your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry. But that's reality. Be as pissed as you want, it won't change reality. It's a measured system, the wavefunction is collapsed.
Click to expand...

But why does YOURS hold water?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I don't want any more reasons why mine doesn't. I want to know, from YOU, why YOURS does?
 
Knowledge=power said:
But why does YOURS hold water?
Click to expand...

Why does mine hold water? Because my argument is that your argument doesn't hold water. And I have shown that.

I think you are horribly mistaken on the point I was making.
 
Tucker Case said:
Progress is determined by society adhering to the agreed upon the morality.
Click to expand...

So a slave society oppressing more slaves is moral progress???? Would Nazi society killing more Jews be moral progress??? Given your definition you'd have to say yes.

It's not possible to make a philosophy based on that which is impossible to understand. We can only base our philosophy on our subjectively derived guesses as to what that objective morality might be, as we have no way of determining what it actually includes prior to developing the philosophy. When we pretend to be operating form an objective morality, what we are really doing is hoping that our guesses are hitting the mark, but we have no way of determining if they are or not.
Click to expand...

Most of philosophy is trying to understand things that seam impossible to understand ... As far as "subjectively derived guesses," not necessarily, you have many ethical theories from utalitarianism to Kantian ethics and so on to try and make sense and make universal observations and make an ethical system.

We have moral experience, i.e. a sense of morality, and reason, and all we can do is try and build from there.

But if there IS no objective morality ... then there is no error, moral progress and so on.
 
DouglasPocock said:
To begin, this is my first post and I might as well share my particular views before I begin.
I am an atheist in the sense of personal gods but I have yet to make up my mind about an all pervasive force in the universe that can not be defined. But, this discussion is not about whether or not atheism is right or wrong. In fact, I would like the mention of gods, deities, or anything else of that nature to not come up here.
Secondly, I hold that morality is a construct of society and relative.

So, without holding off the topic further...

Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?

If there is not an objective morality, can we sustain that cultural morality is a valid basis for morality?
If there is an objective morality, where does it come from? (I will debate against this, but I would like to see arguments for it).
If you hold that not only is there not an objective morality, but that relative morality is irrelevant, please expand on your topic.
If you hold a fourth stance, please explain.

Nihilists, Solipsists, and other hyper-radical or non-falsifiable philosophical viewpoints need not respond.
Click to expand...

It's not really a "construct" of society. Nor is it objective. It arises from what works for society. Morality arose from society's needs, not choices. It's based on survival.

Regarding the ethics of the religious, consider US right wing gun lovers. Religious yes, probably claim to respect life, have no respect whatsoever for the lives of other living things which they often seem to enjoy shooting for no reason at all and often are quite keen on aggressively military stance toward divergent human ethnicities they perceive as a threat to their own cultural norms.

Subjective...
 
RGacky3 said:
So a slave society oppressing more slaves is moral progress????
Click to expand...

If that is the shared morality of that society. It wouldn't be progress according to my standards, though.

Would Nazi society killing more Jews be moral progress??? Given your definition you'd have to say yes.
Click to expand...

Progress is an entirely subjective measure based on what one's subjectively determined goals are. If I start in Chicago, and travel 50 miles toward New York, we cannot know if I made any progress until we know what my goal is. If my goal is to go to LA, there's absolutely no progress. In fact, I've regressed.

The "goal" or target destination can easily be defined by one's subjective morality. There's no requirement of objectivity.



Most of philosophy is trying to understand things that seam impossible to understand ... As far as "subjectively derived guesses," not necessarily, you have many ethical theories from utalitarianism to Kantian ethics and so on to try and make sense and make universal observations and make an ethical system.
Click to expand...

Just because it is systematic does not mean it is not a subjectively derived guess. Both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are incredibly subjective by virtue of how they define something to be "good". ALL of the "universal observations" in such systems are made with an eye toward this subjectively defined goal of "goodness".

We have moral experience, i.e. a sense of morality, and reason, and all we can do is try and build from there.
Click to expand...

All of which is filtered through our own subjective understanding of good.

But if there IS no objective morality ... then there is no error, moral progress and so on.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement of objectivity for error and progress to exist because moral error and moral progress are both just as subjectively defined as morality is.

Progress can exist whenever a self-determined goal exists. Error can also exist whenever a self-determined goal exists. How the goal is determined has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the potential for progress and error.

You are essentially claiming that the way the goal is determined is of absolute importance to the existence of error and progress, yet there is no evidence at all to support such a notion.
 
Tucker Case said:
If that is the shared morality of that society. It wouldn't be progress according to my standards, though.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't your statement, it wasn't whatever standard is right is whatever one you think is right, it was progress was the shared value of society, if it is just the individual, then moral progress cannot happen beyond the individual's perception, i.e. strawberry is progress over chocolate but only for my toungue.

Progress is an entirely subjective measure based on what one's subjectively determined goals are. If I start in Chicago, and travel 50 miles toward New York, we cannot know if I made any progress until we know what my goal is. If my goal is to go to LA, there's absolutely no progress. In fact, I've regressed.

The "goal" or target destination can easily be defined by one's subjective morality. There's no requirement of objectivity.
Click to expand...

If that is the case we cannot say that morality of a society has "progressed," just "I like it better."

What you talked about can be stated objectively easily, i.e.
1. It is good when someone is where he would like to be.
2. Person A. went to where he wanted to be.
3. Action "2" is thus good.

Thus you have objective progress, we all recognize that Person getting to where he wanted to be is good.

But I understand your point, but that doesn't equate to progress beyond individual progress, in which its akin to progress like saying "this dish has more rice, which is good because I like rice."

Just because it is systematic does not mean it is not a subjectively derived guess. Both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are incredibly subjective by virtue of how they define something to be "good". ALL of the "universal observations" in such systems are made with an eye toward this subjectively defined goal of "goodness".
Click to expand...

Those systems assume an objective "good" but what those theories were were epistemological problems of morals, not ontological.

All of which is filtered through our own subjective understanding of good.
Click to expand...

As are all of our other senses .... and infact all of our other experiences, that doesn't mean we can't say anything about that or that none of them are based on anything objective.

There is no requirement of objectivity for error and progress to exist because moral error and moral progress are both just as subjectively defined as morality is.

Progress can exist whenever a self-determined goal exists. Error can also exist whenever a self-determined goal exists. How the goal is determined has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the potential for progress and error.

You are essentially claiming that the way the goal is determined is of absolute importance to the existence of error and progress, yet there is no evidence at all to support such a notion.
Click to expand...

You're wrong here.

Error can ONLY exist for yourself, i.e. you cannot say so and so did soemthing wrong, since your applying your subjective values on him, all you can say is "I don't like what soandso did, which holds as much weight as saying "I don't like chocolate ice cream."

Also progress cannot exist either, you cannot say "we have moral progress because slavery is gone" anymore than you can say "we have spacial progress because everyone is in Las Vegas," as you stated, it isn't progress unless the INDIVIDUAL wants to be in Las Vegas, so really it isn't progress at all, because ethics by definition are things that you can state in terms of "should and shouldn't" and since everyone has their own standard, you can't really say that, any more than you can say "you should prefer strawberry ice cream."
 
RGacky3 said:
But that wasn't your statement
Click to expand...

Yes it was. Please don't attribute your failure to understand my statement to me

.. it was progress was the shared value of society
Click to expand...

And why do you have the misguided delusion that what I said does not adhere to that?

if it is just the individual, then moral progress cannot happen beyond the individual's perception, i.e. strawberry is progress over chocolate but only for my toungue.
Click to expand...

Serious question: do you know what progress means?



If that is the case we cannot say that morality of a society has "progressed," just "I like it better."
Click to expand...

If society's goal is to abolish slavery, or promote freedom for all people, then there is progress AND it is liked better. It's part of the definition of the word progress that it is moving toward some goal or objective.

What you talked about can be stated objectively easily, i.e.
1. It is good when someone is where he would like to be.
Click to expand...

You just failed three words in. "Good" has no objective measure.



But I understand your point
Click to expand...

False. You could not have presented the "rebuttal" that you did had you understood my point.



Those systems assume an objective "good"
Click to expand...

Assume = subjectively guess at.





As are all of our other senses .... and infact all of our other experiences, that doesn't mean we can't say anything about that or that none of them are based on anything objective.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about perception, we're talking about value statements like "good".

Error can ONLY exist for yourself, i.e. you cannot say so and so did soemthing wrong, since your applying your subjective values on him, all you can say is "I don't like what soandso did, which holds as much weight as saying "I don't like chocolate ice cream."
Click to expand...


Where on Earth did you get the absurd notion that it does that?

... it isn't progress unless the INDIVIDUAL wants to be in Las Vegas, so really it isn't progress at all
Click to expand...

It isn't progress unless the GOAL is to get to Las Vegas. GOAL, not individual.

You are still making the same mistake of trying to focus on how the goal is determined rather than the existence of the goal. Don't do that. It causes you to be in error. Objectively.

If your goal, however, is to say stuff that is not factually accurate, you will certainly be making progress toward that goal if you repeat what you have said.

Would that individual goal be the same thing as a societal goal? Of course not.
 
Tucker Case said:
Yes it was. Please don't attribute your failure to understand my statement to me
Click to expand...

You said "Progress is determined by society adhering to the agreed upon the morality."

Which would imply that whatever society agrees morality is would be correct .... If progress would be society adhering to that.

And why do you have the misguided delusion that what I said does not adhere to that?
Click to expand...

Because of what you said.

Serious question: do you know what progress means?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a philosophical forum so you have to use words specifically, progress is "getting better," "moving toward a goal," "improvement." If you're gonna say there is "moral improvement" it would necessitate some kind of objective morality, otherwise where is the goal? if it is subjective, then the improvement would just be other people doing what you say.

If society's goal is to abolish slavery, or promote freedom for all people, then there is progress AND it is liked better. It's part of the definition of the word progress that it is moving toward some goal or objective.
Click to expand...

How is that moral progress? To YOU perhaps, but what about people who think slavery is moral? Its regression, and why is your opinion on morality better than theres, if there is no objective measure? Infact a society with a goal to have MORE slaves doing that would be progressing morally (according to your definition) the more slaves they have. Right?

You just failed three words in. "Good" has no objective measure.
Click to expand...

Yet you talk as if there is.

And you missed the point, I was talking about "progress" assuming objective morality, my point was it's possible to talk about jack going to new york as progress in a subjective way but also in an objective way.

False. You could not have presented the "rebuttal" that you did had you understood my point.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand your own point :)

Assume = subjectively guess at.
Click to expand...

If you're consistant then you'd have to assume that a society with a goal of slavery gaining slaves is JUST AS MORALLY PROGRESSIVE as a society with a goal of abolishing slavery freeing slaves.

We're not talking about perception, we're talking about value statements like "good".
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm using perception as an example to illustrate a point .... to say that your argument is meaningless because EVERY exeprience is subjective but that doesn't commit us to say there is no objective reality behind it.

Where on Earth did you get the absurd notion that it does that?
Click to expand...

From your own subjectivism ... you cannot morally error if the ONLY moral standard are your own whims, because whatever your opinion is morally, it's just as valid as anyone elses, thus someone else cannot say "you error morally." It's simply logic my friend.

It isn't progress unless the GOAL is to get to Las Vegas. GOAL, not individual.

You are still making the same mistake of trying to focus on how the goal is determined rather than the existence of the goal. Don't do that. It causes you to be in error. Objectively.

If your goal, however, is to say stuff that is not factually accurate, you will certainly be making progress toward that goal if you repeat what you have said.

Would that individual goal be the same thing as a societal goal? Of course not.
Click to expand...

But the individual is the one that sets the goal .... goals are not objective are they.

How the goal is set is paramount to this question, you can't say "moral progress is accomplishing moral goals" without explaining where the goals come from ... otherwise all you have is a tautology no actual account of morality.

Also you're last sentance ... why is societies "goal" more important than the "individual" goal? Since there is no objective value of "goals," (as that would be ethical values), so if my goal is to make slaves, then why is the fact that other peoples goals is the opposite any more valid? since as you said it's all SUBJECTIVE.
 
RGacky3 said:
You said "Progress is determined by society adhering to the agreed upon the morality."
Click to expand...

Correct. This is because society would determine the moral goals that would be

Which would imply that whatever society agrees morality is would be correct
Click to expand...

No. It implies that there is no such thing as an objective "correct", so it couldn't possibly imply the above.

The closest thing to the above that it would imply would be "Whatever morality a society agrees upon would determine what that society views to be "correct"'



.... If progress would be society adhering to that.
Click to expand...

Just because something qualifies as "progress" does not mean it is "correct". It merely means that advancement toward a goal has occurred.


Because of what you said.
Click to expand...

False. It was because of your flawed understanding of what I said, not because of what I actually said.

Yes, this is a philosophical forum so you have to use words specifically, progress is "getting better," "moving toward a goal," "improvement."
Click to expand...

Not is is not. Progress is "advancement toward a goal". You have to use words specifically AND correctly.

If you're gonna say there is "moral improvement"
Click to expand...

Nobody has said "moral improvement", though. We've talked about progress, but not improvement.

it would necessitate some kind of objective morality, otherwise where is the goal?
Click to expand...

The goal is subjectively determined by the people who set the goal. It always is, regardless of what they use as their guide to set the goal.

if it is subjective, then the improvement would just be other people doing what you say.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you are using the word progress when you mean to use improvement. They aren't the same thing. Progress might or might not be viewed as improvement. they are not dependent on each other, although they are sometimes viewed concurrently.


How is that moral progress?
Click to expand...

I never connected "improvement" and "progress". That mistake was entirely your own.

To YOU perhaps, but what about people who think slavery is moral?
Click to expand...

People who think slavery is moral would view any progress made toward their goal of having slavery in society as an improvement. People who think slavery is immoral would view any progress made toward the pro-slavery people's goal of having slavery in society as a detrimental.


Its regression
Click to expand...

From the anti-slavery perspective, absolutely, because it pulls society further from their agreed upon goal of not having slavery in society. It's not objectively progressive or regressive, though.

and why is your opinion on morality better than theres if there is no objective measure?
Click to expand...

The same way it is better if an objective measure that was unknowable did exist. I feel that my opinion is "better" because I have reached the moral conclusion that it is "better". Nothing changes, since "better" is itself a subjectively derived concept.

Better does not exist objectively. Never has. It's a personal value statement. The reason why the morality is agreed upon is because people who have vastly different perceptions of better in a moral sense are often totally incompatible with each other.










Infact a society with a goal to have MORE slaves doing that would be progressing morally (according to your definition) the more slaves they have. Right?
Click to expand...

From their perspective, any progress toward their moral goal would be moral progress.

And to outside societies that have a moral opposition to slavery and have a goal of preventing slavery, the exact same thing would be viewed as moral regression since ti pulls them further away from their moral goal.






Yet you talk as if there is.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I've been quite clear pointing out the opposite. I'm using words correctly, but I have no control over your false interpretations of those words.

my point was it's possible to talk about jack going to new york as progress in a subjective way but also in an objective way.
Click to expand...

And we're doing the exact same thing when it comes to moral progress. Example: the slave society. We can objectively call their advancement toward their goal "progress" from their moral perspective while also noting how it is regressive from our own moral perspective.

Ironically, you are arguing for an objective morality in order to feel justified in your own subjective judgments. It's as though you believe that if your morality were derived entirely from your own intellect it would somehow be "inferior" to it being derived entirely from your own intellect in an ambiguous approximation of a purely hypothetical objective morality. Why, exactly, would the italicized portion of the preceding sentence make your subjective judgements any more valuable?

I don't think you understand your own point :)
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. You mistakenly think progress means the same thing as improvement, so it's a given that you would think I am making a point which I have not made.

If you're consistant then you'd have to assume that a society with a goal of slavery gaining slaves is JUST AS MORALLY PROGRESSIVE as a society with a goal of abolishing slavery freeing slaves.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I hold moral values and create moral goals of my own. Those goals determine whether or not I consider something to be progressive or not. I do not judge whether or not a society is progressive based on their goals, I make that judgement based on my own goals.

I can, however, objectively note whether or not a society is progressive by their own standards.


Yes and I'm using perception as an example to illustrate a point .... to say that your argument is meaningless because EVERY exeprience is subjective but that doesn't commit us to say there is no objective reality behind it.
Click to expand...

So? We aren't talking about perception, we are talking about values.

In other words, you are making a point about A, when we are discussing B. Showing that something is the case for A does nothing to support the claim that it is also the case for B. My argument is about B, not A. Therefore you haven't made the point you seem to want to make.


From your own subjectivism ... you cannot morally error if the ONLY moral standard are your own whims
Click to expand...

False. Moral error is always defined by one's whims, regardless of whether or not they believe in the existence of the ambiguous hypothetical objective morality or not.

because whatever your opinion is morally, it's just as valid as anyone elses
Click to expand...

If we adopt a moral position, it is because we believe it is more valid than the other positions, regardless of whether or not we pretend it is accurately based on something outside of ourselves which we cannot know or if we accept that it is subjectively derived.

thus someone else cannot say "you error morally."
Click to expand...

Everyone can say "I believe that you error morally". Where on Earth did you get the silly idea that they could not?

It's simply logic my friend.
Click to expand...

It's actually unsound logic based on a false premise.



But the individual is the one that sets the goal .... goals are not objective are they.
Click to expand...

No goal is objective. It's an impossibility.

How the goal is set is paramount to this question
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

you can't say "moral progress is accomplishing moral goals" without explaining where the goals come from
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea from?



Also you're last sentance ... why is societies "goal" more important than the "individual" goal?
Click to expand...

Where on Earth did you get the word "important" from? I've looked over that sentence about 6 times now trying to find it, yet it isn't present. Did you have a hallucination of some sort?
 
Tucker Case said:
Correct. This is because society would determine the moral goals that would be
Click to expand...

Ok ... so

1. you havn't defending this at all.
2. Lets STICK to your definition.

No. It implies that there is no such thing as an objective "correct", so it couldn't possibly imply the above.

The closest thing to the above that it would imply would be "Whatever morality a society agrees upon would determine what that society views to be "correct"'
Click to expand...

But why should I care what "society" says is a goal? Since there is no objective "correct" that would apply also what "society" would agree on.

Just because something qualifies as "progress" does not mean it is "correct". It merely means that advancement toward a goal has occurred.
Click to expand...

Ok then slavery is progress.

False. It was because of your flawed understanding of what I said, not because of what I actually said.
Click to expand...

Not is is not. Progress is "advancement toward a goal". You have to use words specifically AND correctly.
Click to expand...

No, I'm using the actual definition .... It can mean that, and it can mean also "improvement."

Nobody has said "moral improvement", though. We've talked about progress, but not improvement.
Click to expand...

Ok fine, lets stick with that definition.

People who think slavery is moral would view any progress made toward their goal of having slavery in society as an improvement. People who think slavery is immoral would view any progress made toward the pro-slavery people's goal of having slavery in society as a detrimental.
Click to expand...

OK ... THIS is what I am getting at, so according to your model both scenarios are equally "moral."

From the anti-slavery perspective, absolutely, because it pulls society further from their agreed upon goal of not having slavery in society. It's not objectively progressive or regressive, though.
Click to expand...

Ok.

The same way it is better if an objective measure that was unknowable did exist. I feel that my opinion is "better" because I have reached the moral conclusion that it is "better". Nothing changes, since "better" is itself a subjectively derived concept.

Better does not exist objectively. Never has. It's a personal value statement. The reason why the morality is agreed upon is because people who have vastly different perceptions of better in a moral sense are often totally incompatible with each other.
Click to expand...

How do you know better does not exist objectively? We have moral experience, how is that different from other experience?

And to outside societies that have a moral opposition to slavery and have a goal of preventing slavery, the exact same thing would be viewed as moral regression since ti pulls them further away from their moral goal.
Click to expand...

And if there are more societies that support slavery .... so be it.


And we're doing the exact same thing when it comes to moral progress. Example: the slave society. We can objectively call their advancement toward their goal "progress" from their moral perspective while also noting how it is regressive from our own moral perspective.

Ironically, you are arguing for an objective morality in order to feel justified in your own subjective judgments. It's as though you believe that if your morality were derived entirely from your own intellect it would somehow be "inferior" to it being derived entirely from your own intellect in an ambiguous approximation of a purely hypothetical objective morality. Why, exactly, would the italicized portion of the preceding sentence make your subjective judgements any more valuable?
Click to expand...

First paragraph ... fine.

Second paragraph ... Nice psycho-analysis, but I havn't argued anything here about what morality is, or what objective morality could be or would be.

I'm not surprised. You mistakenly think progress means the same thing as improvement, so it's a given that you would think I am making a point which I have not made.
Click to expand...

Dictionary definition ...

Nonsense. I hold moral values and create moral goals of my own. Those goals determine whether or not I consider something to be progressive or not. I do not judge whether or not a society is progressive based on their goals, I make that judgement based on my own goals.

I can, however, objectively note whether or not a society is progressive by their own standards.
Click to expand...

ok ... but again, it's as arbitrary as "I like chocolate and you like Vanilla," if you're claiming that fine ....

As far as society ... then morality is not society making their goals, in the end, its all the individual, it seams like, since no one's "morality" is bounded by society.

So? We aren't talking about perception, we are talking about values.

In other words, you are making a point about A, when we are discussing B. Showing that something is the case for A does nothing to support the claim that it is also the case for B. My argument is about B, not A. Therefore you haven't made the point you seem to want to make.
Click to expand...

You argue that there is no objective morality because we experience morality subjectively. i.e.

The fact that we experience morality subjectively IMPLIES there is no objective morality.

However, I argue that logic would lead to pure idealism. Since ALL we experience is subjective thus according to your logic that would Imply there is no Objective reality.

It's a simply logical argument.

False. Moral error is always defined by one's whims, regardless of whether or not they believe in the existence of the ambiguous hypothetical objective morality or not.
Click to expand...

Then there cannot be moral error as long as YOU believe what you did is correct?

If we adopt a moral position, it is because we believe it is more valid than the other positions, regardless of whether or not we pretend it is accurately based on something outside of ourselves which we cannot know or if we accept that it is subjectively derived.


Everyone can say "I believe that you error morally". Where on Earth did you get the silly idea that they could not?
Click to expand...

They can say it, but it would be meaningless because they'd be appealing to their own subjective morality that doesn't hold for anyone else, it would be as meaningless as saying "I believe you error in your choice of ice cream flavor."


It's actually unsound logic based on a false premise.
Click to expand...

Where is the false premise????

You say "all morality is subjective," yet one can still "error morally," I suppose it's possible if one only goes against his own personal morality, but you can fix that, just change your own personal morality.

I guess that error is exactly the same as eating chocolate ice cream when you'd prefer vanilla.

No goal is objective. It's an impossibility.
Click to expand...

Not logically ... You have to argue why.

No it isn't.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is, if you are saying that SOCIETY (rather than individuals) define morality.

Where on Earth did you get the word "important" from? I've looked over that sentence about 6 times now trying to find it, yet it isn't present. Did you have a hallucination of some sort?
Click to expand...

You claimed that morality comes from societies set goals .... Why not just individuals goals?
 
RGacky3 said:
But why should I care what "society" says is a goal? Since there is no objective "correct" that would apply also what "society" would agree on.
Click to expand...

You aren't required to care about it. Who cares if you don't care? Societies outline specific ways for dealing with those who do not conform to what it deems to be correct.



Ok then slavery is progress.
Click to expand...

It can be. It can also be simultaneously regressive.

No, I'm using the actual definition .... It can mean that, and it can mean also "improvement."
Click to expand...

It can't mean improvement in an objective sense, though, since improvement is a value judgement and all value judgements are subjective.


OK ... THIS is what I am getting at, so according to your model both scenarios are equally "moral."
Click to expand...

Not at all. According to my model, people with different moralities will view it as moral or immoral based on their morality.

It can be seen by one side as moral, while another side views it as immoral. This statement is true regardless of whether or not an some ambiguous hypothetical objective morality existed or not.




How do you know better does not exist objectively?
Click to expand...

Because it is a term that exists solely to describing a subjective interpretation.

Objectively, something can only be described as "different". Objectively, something could only be described as "more accurately adhering to the objective standard".

Better, worse, improvement... these terms are always subjective.

We have moral experience, how is that different from other experience?
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, it isn't. If we call other experiences "better" or "worse" it is still a subjective judgement.

And if there are more societies that support slavery .... so be it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "so be it"? We're discussing statements about reality. If there are more societies that support slavery, then there are more societies that support slavery. It would have no effect on the morality of the societies that do not support slavery. Your statement doesn't make sense in the context of my statement.


Second paragraph ... Nice psycho-analysis, but I havn't argued anything here about what morality is, or what objective morality could be or would be.
Click to expand...

The second paragraph doesn't imply that you did argue those things at all.

It implies (more accurately, it explicitly states) that you are arguing that an objective morality must exist in order for subjective judgements about morality to have meaning. That is exactly what you are doing.

Dictionary definition ...
Click to expand...

Yet the context of the discussion requires us to use the objective definition, not the subjective one. Progress can mean improvement in certain subjective contexts, but not in the context of an objective morality's necessity.


ok ... but again, it's as arbitrary as "I like chocolate and you like Vanilla," if you're claiming that fine ....
Click to expand...

"I like Chocolate and you like vanilla" is a very different claim than a moral claim is. They are statements about reality. They ar eeither accurate or inaccurate. There is no value judgement at ALL present in that claim. It is not at all arbitrary.

Whereas a moral claim is more akin to someone saying "chocolate is right, vanilla is wrong". That claim can be arbitrary, or it can be based on some sort of reasoning.

That reasoning, however, is going to be subjective. It would not simply be a whim (despite your attempts to claim that it would be) but would also not be objective.

There is no dichotomy between something being objective or being a personal whim.



As far as society ... then morality is not society making their goals, in the end, its all the individual, it seams like, since no one's "morality" is bounded by society.
Click to expand...

An individual is free to disagree with society, but in order for their to be an agreed upon progress for a society, that society must inherently agree upon the goals. The individual may consider something to be regression despite belonging to a society that views it as progress.


You argue that there is no objective morality because we experience morality subjectively. i.e.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about experience. That is a strawman of your own creation.

It's a simply logical argument.
Click to expand...

Against a strawman.



Then there cannot be moral error as long as YOU believe what you did is correct?
Click to expand...

I would not consider it a moral error, but others are free to consider it a moral error, and more than likely, someone will view it as such.


They can say it, but it would be meaningless because they'd be appealing to their own subjective morality that doesn't hold for anyone else, it would be as meaningless as saying "I believe you error in your choice of ice cream flavor."
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The reaction to their statement is not "Your statement is meaningless", it is "why do you think that".

Whether or not their statement is meaningful is entirely predicated on HOW they answer that question. If they say something as stupid as "I just think it's wrong" (which is basically what you are attempting to claim any subjectively derived morality must inherently do) then it is meaningless drivel.

But if they provide reasoning for their claim, it has meaning. It might not affect a change in the other person's thinking, but it is not meaningless.

And if the morality is agreed upon by a society, then there is some added weight behind such a claim as it will allow for punishment for non-conforming behavior that is deemed collectively to be "in moral error".




Where is the false premise????
Click to expand...

to paraphrase one that you continually base your arguments on: "If a moral view is subjectively derived, it is as arbitrary as a preference for chocolate ice cream." That is a false premise based on a false dichotomy.

You say "all morality is subjective," yet one can still "error morally,"
Click to expand...

Yes, because I'm saying that error is a subjective judgment. I am NOT saying that one can objectively "error morally", because that is impossible.

At most, one can either adhere to the objective morality or not adhere to it. Whether or not this is an error is ultimately subjectively defined. Just like anything else, an error can only exists when it runs counter to ones goal.

Objectively speaking, one can only be accurate or inaccurate.

I suppose it's possible if one only goes against his own personal morality, but you can fix that, just change your own personal morality.
Click to expand...

And people do that all the time. Their choice to change their own personal morality has no effect on the subjective judgements that others will make.

I guess that error is exactly the same as eating chocolate ice cream when you'd prefer vanilla.
Click to expand...

A much more accurate analogy here would be "eating chocolate ice cream when one believes it is wrong to eat chocolate ice cream."

If someone holds such a view, they will deem anyone who is eating chocolate ice cream to be in error.


Not logically ... You have to argue why.
Click to expand...

Logically it is impossible.

A goal is a desired outcome or objective to which an effort is directed. Desire is an emotion. Emotions cannot be objective. Anything based upon an emotion must therefore be subjectively derived.

If you disagree with reality on this, then it is on you to prove the above incorrect by demonstrating that desire can exist objectively.


It absolutely is, if you are saying that SOCIETY (rather than individuals) define morality.
Click to expand...

First, I didn't say that. You made that up and attributed it to me. Second, it still wouldn't matter because how the goal is created has no bearing on whether or not progress is made toward that goal.

You claimed that morality comes from societies set goals .... Why not just individuals goals?
Click to expand...

Please stop pretending I said things that I didn't say. And even if I did say that, it would not logically justify your irrational use of the word "important". Absolutely nothing I have actually said would warrant it's use, but even more importantly, that which you have falsely attributed to me ALSO fails to justify it's use.

Now, I did say that progress is determined by agreed upon morality, and I was not clear that I specifically meant "societal progress", since it was said in the context of your claim about whether or not we could talk about progress in a societal context.

That's part of where agreement comes into play. The actual discussion of progress. But more importantly, the effort required to make progress toward a goal must come from more than just the individual. It must come from the society itself. Ergo, general agreement about the goals is required for progress to occur. Agreement about "human value, error and upward mobility."
 
DouglasPocock said:
... can we say that there is an objective morality?
Click to expand...

No, because the term morality has a connotation that is dependent on the subjective interpretation of humans.

Rule No 1: Humans are irrelevant to reality.

Rule No 2: Any human rule, value, ethic, axiom or prerequisite, has to be considered within the context of subjective evaluation based on human subjectivity, not scientific or real or natural factors.

Rule No 3: Morality is a general consensus that affects an individual's behavior. Ripping out living hearts from humans as a sacrifice to the Sun God was moral to the Aztecs. I'ts not to us. It again may be OK to future societies. Who knows.
 
Paralogic said:
No, because the term morality has a connotation that is dependent on the subjective interpretation of humans.

Rule No 1: Humans are irrelevant to reality.

Rule No 2: Any human rule, value, ethic, axiom or prerequisite, has to be considered within the context of subjective evaluation based on human subjectivity, not scientific or real or natural factors.

Rule No 3: Morality is a general consensus that affects an individual's behavior. Ripping out living hearts from humans as a sacrifice to the Sun God was moral to the Aztecs. I'ts not to us. It again may be OK to future societies. Who knows.
Click to expand...

Nihilistic, but true.

I don't understand how anyone can say morality is objective. It varies even from household to household, let alone cultures, and throughout time.
 
Knowledge=power said:
... but true.

I don't understand how anyone can say morality is objective. It varies even from household to household, let alone cultures, and throughout time.
Click to expand...

Morality can't be objective. Nature is not moral. The universe is not moral. The term moral was invented by the human intelligence to refer to accepted behavior. It has nothing to do with reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom