- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is the secondary effect of "The Afterlife"?But it's still a possibly useful analogy for you to consider -- in that dark matter is for many something we think exists based on secondary effects, without ever seeing it.
I am not in a position to know all or many of the effects of being alive in the afterlife, or even several, so am not competent to speculate or claim various effects about that. But, I can attest I've learned by direct experience that God is real, and I can say that I understand no one gets that kind of proof before faith and meeting certain requirements Christ clearly says in his words in the 4 gospels.What is the secondary effect of "The Afterlife"?
Well, even though we are used to thinking it's probably a new form of matter (new to us), that's still actually just a hypothesis. It's a reasonable possibility that it might be a form of matter, so it's not just a far out unlikely speculative idea -- instead you could say it's a leading hypothesis -- but it's also not at all something yet confirmed in any way.I do not. It can be indirectly measured.
OK so if it’s not objectively wrong then we have no basis or right to tell people it’s wrong to murder. But yet we do tell them its objectively wrong to murder.
If someone said to you "it’s ok to murder" I think lie most people you will say "no its not" regardless of your subjective views. That applies “you cannot murder" beyond your subjective view and into the world onto others. That’s talking an objective position.
Yes so I would only have to show you once that an alien is living here and not have to show you every alien. It’s the same for objective morality. If I show there are objective morals for one situation I have then proved objective morality. Showing you additional situations is only repeating the same thing.
Its self-evident that’s what logic is. So if you make a logical fallacy that doesn’t follow then its self-evident because its faulty thinking ie you say having common morals is because of social conditioning and that discounts objective morality being a possible cause.
But you are only assuming this and have not provided evidence that this is really the case. You need to show and argue the evidence that shows social conditioning is the only reason we have common morals. You haven’t done that. So therefore your argument is refuted because it has no support only an assumption that this is the case.
I don’t think you understand what the objection is saying. It’s saying people still have the same core morals even when they live in different societies/cultures. Different cultures should condition different moral values. But research has found there are common moral values everyone uses. That doesn’t fit the social conditioning argument.
That’s unless you want to say a giant coincident happened and everyone regardless of culture just happened to be conditioned the same. A simpler and more logical answer would be they all have a common knowledge of morals that’s been there from birth and culture or social conditioning only adds different ways to live out these truths. This also fits the evidence that babies have the same moral knowledge regardless of culture.
Except the research shows that even 6 month olds have this moral knowledge and that the moral knowledge was the same regardless of the culture and beliefs of the parents or society they lived on. So we would expect the baby of atheist parents to not have these beliefs but that is not the case. We are born with the beliefs.
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
“some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong.
But we have found that even 3-month-olds respond differently to a character who helps another than to a character who hinders another person.
The Moral Life of Babies
Actually I did reply to that post soon after here #1995. I address your objections. The one done 2 years later was a different study so it wasn’t contradicting anything. But this is just a distraction from the point I was supporting for which the evidence shows.
Actually I just spotted a mistake I made. It should have said "doesn't explain" instead of "does explain".
4) Social conditioning does'nt explain moral disagreement and moral progress.
It shows your position is wrong because if people are socially conditions to live by common morals then anyone who disputes those common morals such as moral reformist are disputing and disrupting those agreed moral values.
Yet moral disagreement and progress requires disputing the existing agreed morals. That can only happen if there is an objective moral basis that we can use to measure moral progress moving from something bad to something better or good. So social conditioning cannot explain moral progress and disagreement.
Then you have just used an objective basis for morality "Suffering". By relying on "Suffering" you are appealing to some measure. Yet again because suffering is subjective another group of people like in China may see suffering as good to keep people in line. Under relative morality we cannot say they are wrong because that’s how China sees things.
So now we have this divided system where different cultures have different and opposing morals relative to their situation and nobody is wrong or cannot be wrong. Yet western nations live like morality is absolute when they condemn other countries like China and Africa for being morally wrong. Thats a contradiction and shows the system doesn’t work.
But chimps aren’t moral creatures otherwise we should arrest and jail the chimps who are murdering other chimps" But we don't because we know that animals cannot know they have done something wrong morally and take responsibility for that. They kill as instinct, such as to be the dominate male, to kill an infant to gain a mate etc.
Humm you seem to be slipping morality into animal thinking. Even so once again you make a logical fallacy that because chimps act a certain way then it proves subjective morality.
You objected to me using this argument with objective morality. Evolution only describes how we come to know morality. It doesn’t account for why something is right or wrong.
But when you talk about slavery changing for the better that cannot happen under subjective morality because nothing is better or worse morally. Just like preferences for ice cream no preference or view is right or wrong. So first subjective morality doesn’t fit how morals work. You seem to find this concept hard to accept.
It is only under objective morality that we can make changes for the better. William Wilberforce protested against slavery saying all men are equal. Dr King did the same for civil rights. But they were objecting to the current consensus and you can't do this under subjective morality because the current consensus that slavery was OK wasn’t right or wrong but just a subjective view.
Objective morality is about moral truths and they can accommodate change when the facts of the matter are understood. Wilberforce proclaimed the moral truth that all humans are equal as a moral truth which did not allow for subjective views. So as we come to understand the facts morla truths become more clear.
Because we are working towards some standard or truth that can only happen if there is an objective basis. For slavery it is human "Life" is valuable and with that all people have a right to a valuable "Life".
When agreement is so widespread, there's typically more than personal opinion going on. I think thats the case here.
That's true. But its not about being right/wrong. Its about whether the topic was in subjective or objective realm.There have been lots of things that the majority of people once held that were wrong.
This is a classic logical fallacy. If we applied this to science we would have to say that all objective science that is disagreed over can never have an objective.I disagree. Disagreement about morality does not require some objective standard. If there was an objective standard, how could there be any disagreement?
I just want to address this point as it comes up a lot in one way or another such as also using social conditioning to account for why we have common morals and disproving that there can be any objective morals.The very fact that there can be disagreement is evidence that there is no objective measure of morality.
This is a classic logical fallacy. If we applied this to science we would have to say that all objective science that is disagreed over can never have an objective.
If people disagree on [topic X] then [topic X] cannot be objective
Now that looks just plain silly. Try telling that to your chemistry TA next time you get an answer wrong. “Clearly people have had disagreements as to what constitutes an ionic bond…therefore ionic bonds cannot exist!” Obviously, the sheer fact that people disagree on a question does not imply that the question is meaningless or has no correct answer. The same is true of moral problems.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism
The most pervasive form of moral relativism occurs as cultural metaethical relativism, an approach to ethics which incorrectly derives the nonexistence of objective morality or truth from cultural disagreement.
There is an infinite number of ways in which the parameters of this line of logic can be replicated, thus, Rachels (23) presents a general template for these arguments. It states that:
This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.
- Different cultures have different moral codes.
- Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism: that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).
Implying that disagreement alone is proof enough that objective morality does not exist.
In order to demonstrate the absurdity of this claim, imagine a prominent, modern society believes that the earth is flat whilst the rest of the world believes that it is spherical. Can it be said that, “from the mere fact that people disagree” (Ibid), objective truth in geography does not exist? We would still objectively accept the shape of the earth as round and not be dissuaded simply because someone disagrees with us. This same principle is just as applicable to ethics.
Secondly, the notion that all different moral judgements are equally valid allows for logical semantics which strike another blow against moral relativism. Whilst equal validity could suppose the validity of moral judgements, it could just as well be that both judgments are equally lacking in validity (Wellman 178). One of the most common means to circumvent this issue is again the cultural differences argument, “that any ethical judgement is an expression of a total pattern of culture” (Ibid) and therefore valid. However, in light of the need for validity it is important to remember that ethical judgements are the result of enculturation and not reasoning, how could this then be used as a means to rationally justify the validity of one’s judgement?
What these inconsistencies show is that even upon initial, quite basic investigations
the problems of moral relativism are quite large – posing serious obstacles in legitimately denying objective morality. The concept of situational meaning further disproves the legitimacy of moral relativism as a genuine ethical approach.
I see no inconsistencies.
Do you understand the difference between physical reality and metaphysics?This is a classic logical fallacy. If we applied this to science we would have to say that all objective science that is disagreed over can never have an objective.
If people disagree on [topic X] then [topic X] cannot be objective
Now that looks just plain silly. Try telling that to your chemistry TA next time you get an answer wrong. “Clearly people have had disagreements as to what constitutes an ionic bond…therefore ionic bonds cannot exist!” Obviously, the sheer fact that people disagree on a question does not imply that the question is meaningless or has no correct answer. The same is true of moral problems.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism
I just want to address this point as it comes up a lot in one way or another such as also using social conditioning to account for why we have common morals and disproving that there can be any objective morals.
Basically as I have said many times this is faulty illogical reasoning and is well recognised by most people. Rather than I re-explain things as I think I either am not explaining things properly or that you just don't believe me I will use independent sources which explain how the agreement from moral disagreement is a logical fallacy and doesn't prove subjectivelity nor disprove objective morlaity.
The most pervasive form of moral relativism occurs as cultural metaethical relativism, an approach to ethics which incorrectly derives the nonexistence of objective morality or truth from cultural disagreement.
There is an infinite number of ways in which the parameters of this line of logic can be replicated, thus, Rachels (23) presents a general template for these arguments. It states that:
This argument, which we will now refer to as the “cultural differences argument” (Ibid), should be considered logically problematic and implausible.
- Different cultures have different moral codes.
- Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly. This logical inconsistency, in turn reveals a major flaw in moral relativism: that this conclusion about the relativity of morality is derived purely from the fact that different cultures disagree about particular topics (Rachels 24).
Implying that disagreement alone is proof enough that objective morality does not exist.
In order to demonstrate the absurdity of this claim, imagine a prominent, modern society believes that the earth is flat whilst the rest of the world believes that it is spherical. Can it be said that, “from the mere fact that people disagree” (Ibid), objective truth in geography does not exist? We would still objectively accept the shape of the earth as round and not be dissuaded simply because someone disagrees with us. This same principle is just as applicable to ethics.
Secondly, the notion that all different moral judgements are equally valid allows for logical semantics which strike another blow against moral relativism. Whilst equal validity could suppose the validity of moral judgements, it could just as well be that both judgments are equally lacking in validity (Wellman 178). One of the most common means to circumvent this issue is again the cultural differences argument, “that any ethical judgement is an expression of a total pattern of culture” (Ibid) and therefore valid. However, in light of the need for validity it is important to remember that ethical judgements are the result of enculturation and not reasoning, how could this then be used as a means to rationally justify the validity of one’s judgement?
What these inconsistencies show is that even upon initial, quite basic investigations the problems of moral relativism are quite large – posing serious obstacles in legitimately denying objective morality. The concept of situational meaning further disproves the legitimacy of moral relativism as a genuine ethical approach.
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/countering-moral-relativism/
Now remember this the next time you point to people believing morality is objective or believing that X has value or even acting like morality is objective or even acting like X has value. These observations are independent from "what is really the case".The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from its premise. The premise of this argument (a) concerns what people believe, whilst its conclusion (b) concerns “what is really the case” (Ibid), a truth. These two observations are independent from each other and cannot be used to justify either statement correspondingly.
This is what I mean by rather than defeating the objection you change the goal posts all the time. The example is not about proving objective morlaity. It was about showing how your logic is faulty is how you claim there is no objective morality. Lets stick within the boundaries of what we are talking about. You made the claim that moral differences mean theres no objective morlaity and not whether we can prove objective morality.The difference is that in the case of chemistry, there is clear and unambiguous evidence to support one particular conclusion, and any other point of view is demonstrably wrong.
Now, if the same could be done with morality, you'd have a point, but you can't, despite the fact that I have asked you countless times and you've either ignored me completely or given a half-answer which doesn't actually address anything.
No the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise its a logical fallacy. Its quite obvious.I disagree. The premise (different cultures have different moral codes) is the evidence that supports the conclusion. The conclusion stems directly from the premise.
What your doing is only using examples that cannot possibly have an objective. Subjective morality cannot have an objective so of course its going to make sense. Now try the same logic with something that has an objective like the shape of the earth. People disagree about the shape of the earth so therefore theres no objective shapeof the earth. The logic doesnt follow. Its clear to see for all. If you used th9is logic people would see its a fallacy.I could very easily use the same reasoning to apply to other things:
This obviously works well. No one, after all, would object to this if I were to use it to explain why Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans each have their own view of which franchise is the best. Thus, to claim this reasoning is "logically problematic and implausible" when it is applied to morality does not follow.
- Different fan groups have different views of which science fiction franchise is the best.
- Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in which science fiction franchise is the best. Better and worse are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from fan group to fan group.
But thats irrelevant to your claim that there must be no objective morals because people disagree. You have counted out the possibility of objective morality before we even try.Of course, there is clear, unambiguous evidence for a spherical(ish) Earth that can be clearly expressed in scientific terms that can be understood without confusion.
You have not been able to do so when it comes to morality, despite the fact that I have been asking you to do so for a long time now.
You have missed the point of the defeater. Its saying that there is an assumption that the subjective common morals you say society has are correct. They can als be incorrect so therefore you are making the assumption that they are correct. This is pointed out in the section I linked. The assumption isValid according to who? To the person holding the moral judgement? As a part of the culture which serves as the basis for that moral judgement, they will no doubt find that their judgement is acceptable, just as you find your judgement that theft is wrong is valid in a society that views theft as wrong.
But as the above says you are assuming that the cultures view on execution being OK or not as being valid. How can it be valid if there are different cultures that have different opposing views on this. Either one of them is valid or none are valid.But let's say we take a person from a culture that views execution as punishment for certain crimes as morally wrong. If we ask that person to make a judgement about a culture that views execution as punishment for certain crimes as morally right, they are going to conclude that this particular moral judgement is invalid, despite the fact that it would be viewed as perfectly valid from the point of view of a person from the pro-execution culture.
Not really. As the article goes on to sayNow remember this the next time you point to people believing morality is objective or believing that X has value or even acting like morality is objective or even acting like X has value. These observations are independent from "what is really the case".
Ouch! You just shot yourself in the foot!
Not really. As the article goes on to say
However, in light of the need for validity it is important to remember that ethical judgements are the result of enculturation and not reasoning, how could this then be used as a means to rationally justify the validity of one’s judgement?
In other words morals need to be reasoned as to why they are known and lived our by most people rather than just assumed that this must mean morals are objective or the result of social conditioning. So yes its a logical fallacy to just claim the correlation without reasoning.
But morals truths can be reasoned from an agreed basis. Even under subjective morality people may when pushed claim that human "Happiness or wellbeing" is the basis. Thats still reasoning things according to moral objectives.
Yeah why. I understand Metaphysics to be the study of things beyond science (the Physical). It seems a pretty ambigious are as there can be many sub-categories. For example my psoition would be metaphysical realism as I think that "being" is something true beyond the mind.Do you understand the difference between physical reality and metaphysics?
As I have argued the basis for objective morality is the existence of human "LIfe" as a self-evident truth that intrisic value. Its a First Principle Truth and certain obligations flow from this because we are moral agents and understand that life has value and requires certain qualities otherwise humans will not exist.You still havent shown why this "objective morality" has authorithy.
No, you have not argued that. You have asserted that it is true. You call it "self-evident" because you are incapable of arguing that it is true.As I have argued the basis for objective morality is the existence of human "LIfe" as a self-evident truth that intrisic value.
Thats not how authority works.As I have argued the basis for objective morality is the existence of human "LIfe" as a self-evident truth that intrisic value. Its a First Principle Truth and certain obligations flow from this because we are moral agents and understand that life has value and requires certain qualities otherwise humans will not exist.
So its a self fullfilling obligation in some ways because there are epistemic facts in how we should act as humans based on the knowledge that life is intrinsically valuable. But I agree no one has ever come up with a clear evdience like in science. But thats because we are dealing with non-physical principle, values and orders.
Do you understand that you cannot use analogues between physical reality and metaphysics?Yeah why. I understand Metaphysics to be the study of things beyond science (the Physical). It seems a pretty ambigious are as there can be many sub-categories. For example my psoition would be metaphysical realism as I think that "being" is something true beyond the mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?