1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Is there Objective Morality?

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by zippy2006, Sep 3, 2021.

Is there an objective morality?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,714
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And they may wish to take things to an extreme. I just don't see why you feel the need to instantly go there in a discussion between laymen.

    I have seen no evidence that we can shape reality. Like I said, you've been watching too much Star Trek.

    I think the height of something is part of its fundamental nature.

    What if we're a dream being experienced by a sentient fart?

    Honestly, your "what ifs" are getting ludicrous. There's no evidence for any of it. You can't just imagine some radical scenario and act like considering what that scenario means has shown you some hitherto unknown aspect of reality that has lifted you above mere mortal understanding.

    And deeper into the rabbit hole we go...

    You sound like a hippy desperately trying to find some way to make reality fit his far out notions of what should be...
     
  2. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    OK this is interesting. So if we applied this to subjective does that mean those who act immoral have no choice in the matter.

    If we don't choose anything subjectively that sort of locks us into a certain thinking we have no control over. Yet we see people change their minds about their views on climate change or many other moral issues when new information comes to light. That implies that their subjective views are only tentative and subject to change.
     
  3. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,458
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    I already applied this to subjective things. The subjective things you specifically mentioned. You said tastes and feelings and opinions are a matter of choice. That's false.

    Remember, this is what you said:
    Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice.

    Choose to hate the flavor of your favorite food. Now choose to fall madly in love with me. Now choose to have the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe.

    You can't do any of those things can you? That's because these things aren't choices people are capable of making.

    Tastes, feelings, and opinions change. Change =/= choice.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2022
  4. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    So with that logic applied to subjective morality then people cannot choose to be good or bad.

    I'm not sure is a simple as you say. For example someone may subjectively dislike oysters but they have never tried them. They personally don't like them. But someone talks them into trying one and they find they like them. This scenario often happens with a number of things like music, art, feelings ect.

    Subjective thinking is about the subject and its not just about the taste buds for food but a number of factors like personal experience, upbringing, the psychological state of the subject.

    So peoples thinking can be changed about what they prefer, feel, think is good, bad ect with new information and experiences.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2022
  5. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    But you can see the entire bottom of your coffee cup and its not obscured in any way to determine if its got coffee in it.

    But most of the possible locations for any Israelite camps in the Sinai desert are covered in sand and have not been dug up yet. Unless we can see the entire floor of the Sinai desert we cannot be sure there is no evidence down there.

    Yeah why not, its an interesting topic.

    No that would be a psychiatrist lol. Believe it or not we do make meaning out of things. We may not realize it but we do. We are constantly taking in information and mapping meaning to the world. Things matter to us and we want to know whats going on, why it is so.

    But you were saying consciousness can fool us using the diffracted stick as the example. I said that's more about perception. Our perception can be altered by many things, light, water, location ect. But that's all about the mechanical processes involved. Consciousness is not about the mechanical processes and their outcomes. Its just about qualia. In other words its about what its like to have mental states

    But what we can do with our experience of the world is imagine outside the objective world which helps being creative with ideas. From that we get greater insight into what is reality and extract from this truths about how we live in the world.

    Not really. No matter how science understands what part of the brain lights up, how light waves work and how all that works neurologically and biologically it still doesn't explain conscious experience because its not a physical thing.

    Advances in science won’t help us understand consciousness
    Advances in Science won't help us understand consciousness
    Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?
    Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman

    I am not claiming its all about achieving some amazing experience. Experience is what it is and its part of being human. Though the fact we can achieve amazing experiences as part of being a conscious being is something amazing in itself.

    Conscious experience is the filter we use to move through the world and its the only thing we can be sure of that is real because we are in the midst of it and know it its real. We can't just say its unreal because that would be undermining our very existence. So therefore its an important fact in what makes up reality or what is true and real in the world.

    Not sure what you mean by instincts. I think its more about biological inputs and outputs. You can't change how your body works only nature or some sort of intervention beyond nature can do that. People may be born with variations to the normal functioning but there is always an objective reason for that.

    If colour is about light illumination and how our eyes and brain work out what colours we see then yes that would be evidence if there was science to support these claims. Which there is.

    Why do people see the same colours differently?
    Science of 'the Dress': Why We Confuse White & Gold with Blue & Black
    Do we all see the same colours?
    Do we all see the same colours?

    Lol if gaining money was so easy to get. But I would say its not the money that creates the experience its the imagining what the money can give you. That's why they sell money through imagined lifestyles, pics of successful sellers with a Porsche siting on a tropical island etc.

    But the idea that reality may be something we help create or that Mind and consciousness as a fundamental part of reality is supported across a number of disciplines like physics, psychology, spirituality.

    Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
    https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

    In Quantum Physics, “Reality” Really Is What We Choose To Observe
    In Quantum Physics, “Reality” Really Is What We Choose To Observe

    Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
    Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
     
  6. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster E pluribus unum

    +6,443
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Perhaps 10% of the Sinai desert is sand dunes. All of that is along the Med. coast.

    There better *not* be any coffee in my cup.
     
  7. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    Well if we want to find out the fundamentals of reality we have to refer to the experts, like anything I guess, like when doing an essay. But once again I don't think anyone is taking things to the extreme. Its a reasonable idea in the light of of QM and psychology one that seems to fit what is happening just as well if not better than other traditional ideas in physics and cosmology.

    Well its becoming more of a possibility the more time goes by and many great minds think its real and not fiction. When you say you see no evidence I assume you mean empirically. Well if that's the case of course you won't see any evidence because empirical science is not designed to see anything that is not empirical science.

    Height doesn't really matter as a single story building is made out of the same stuff as a skyscraper. Its not about matter in space but our experience of it.

    At the fundamental level a building is 99.99% empty space. But even more fundamental is that mind is behind all that we see and experience because empty space cannot produce an objective world but a mind can.

    Actually dreams are an important part of understanding reality. Out of dreams comes creativity and imagination and out of these comes deeper insights and truths about reality.

    Then you need to learn some theoretical physics and cosmology. There are scientific ideas proposed that support the idea of a simulation, the Hologram Principle, and that Mind and Information are a fundamental part of reality. All these ideas are based on the observer effect in QM and are proposed as possible ideas that can explain what exactly reality is.

    For example look at how virtual reality is beginning to look real to us. We could imagine that the the distant future it becomes so real people cannot tell the difference anymore. Take this further and if as it is claimed that we can make a robotic human who can experience the world then it stands to reason that a simulation with programmed conscious beings would think that they are experiencing something real. This is the Simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom.

    Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
    Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50
    Symmetries Reveal Clues About the Holographic Universe
    Physicists have been busy exploring how our universe might emerge like a hologram out of a two-dimensional sheet. New clues have come from the symmetries found on an infinitely distant “celestial sphere.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/symmetries-reveal-clues-about-the-holographic-universe-20220112/
    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

    Well your missing out because more and more people are jumping into the rabbit hole as it makes sense.

    Yep that's what many in science are doing whether you would call them hippies I think that's a bit dismissive when you have not even explained your reasoning as to why these ideas are so hippy trippy. If they are then many scientists are posing hippy trippy ideas.
     
  8. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    Actually the Sinai desert area covers 12,000 square kilometers so its a pretty big area to search for basically an ancient artifact or two scattered here and there. The Israelite's were nomads so left little behind and never settled. Like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.

    Actually space satellites have discovered Egyptian ruins that people have been walking over for years right under their feet which shows how little they had discovered of the area. But it can only go down so far and the ruins need to be big.

    Most people would say there better be coffee in their cup, especially in the mornings.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2022
  9. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster E pluribus unum

    +6,443
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    There were a couple million of them for a few decades (according to to the story). Archeologists have found plenty of artifacts from desert nomads, including in the Sinai.
     
  10. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,458
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Sure, the experience caused them to like them. They didn't choose to like them. They only chose to try them. We aren't talking about actions though, we're talking about what you said was a choice, and that is taste, feeling, and opinion.

    Remember, this is what you said:
    Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice.
     
  11. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,714
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You miss my point.

    And there would be a lot more evidence than just a few campsites in the desert.

    Please feel free to start a thread and send me a link.

    But reality does not require that we make meaning out of things, and reality does not exist in order to give us something to make meaning out of.

    You keep talking about what we perceive and what we experience as two completely different things.

    Could you tell me something I can perceive without having any experience of it, and/or something I can experience without having any perception of it?

    So you conclude that science will NEVER be able to explain it?

    Yet you seem to be presenting it as something which can reveal the hidden world, and other stuff like that.

    Not sure what you mean by instincts. I think its more about biological inputs and outputs. You can't change how your body works only nature or some sort of intervention beyond nature can do that. People may be born with variations to the normal functioning but there is always an objective reason for that.

    I thought you said that our perception of colour was objectively the same. Now you present a source which highlights how different people can look at the same thing and see different colours. Your position does not seem to be a stable one.

    This is great. The person who claims that morality is objective is now saying that objective reality doesn't exist.
     
  12. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    Then I ask once again if morality is subjective like tastes, feeling, and opinions then is there no choice in subjective morality.
     
  13. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,458
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Wrong. Just because I didn't choose to like chocolate ice cream, doesn't mean that I don't choose when I eat it. Stop trying to commit the Argument from Consequences fallacy and just look at your claim on its own and how to test it.

    Remember, this is what you said:
    Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice.

    Do you understand now why your statement is false? Did you choose to hate the flavor of your favorite food? Did you choose to fall madly in love with me? Did you choose to hold the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe? You didn't because you can't because these things are not a matter of choice.
     
  14. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    All I know is that like non-biblical history there are no archeological evidence for them happening but only some reference of text and we have no problem trusting and believing those events happened.

    Why such extra skepticism when it comes to the bible. Including when mainstream skepticism claimed the Bible was wrong because no such places and people existed only for archeologists to find the evidence and prove the bible right time and time again. This is the point I am making that sometimes the truth can be denied because of personal worldview.

    OK but what thread would you suggest so that non-Christians can participate. The only one I can see that would possibly be suitable is the
    History & Genealogy
    or maybe
    Physical & Life Sciences because its about archeology as well.

    How do you know. You are taking a limited view of reality as only being material (the physical world). But we know there is a lot more to life than material stuff. Many people have been guided by spirituality transcending the physical world and its proven to be a real force.

    Besides we are now finding that a material or physical explanation of reality is inadequate and some immaterial influence better fits what we are finding.

    There's plenty. Basically perception is an unconscious process and experience is a conscious one. Like I mentioned earlier we take in everything and don't even realize it which helps us perceive the world.

    We have to give attention and perceive something before we can experience it. If you don't perceive the colour or object how can you experience it. Though this happens pretty instantly.

    Current evidence suggests that perception becomes conscious at a late-arising stage of focal-attentive processing concerned with information integration and dissemination. Reliable criteria for determining when perception becomes conscious combine the evidence of ‘first-person’ phenomenological reports with ‘third-person’ functional dissociations between preconscious and conscious processing.
    https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712699161620

    Its not me concluding this but scientists and philosophers.

    Yes there is a lot we don't know about reality. But consciousness is part of how we come to get a deeper understanding of reality. We express this through dreams and creative thinking in art and imagination and story telling. From this we can extract greater insight into the human condition and gain truths about ourselves and the world.

    If you read the article it explains the objective basis why people may see different colours in the famous dress for example. But the different colours are different particular colours people see are either gold and white or blue and black. This has all to do with illumination and the way our brains try to figure out what colours things should be based on the colours our eye cones are designed to pickup which are blue, green and red.

    So for all other colours our brains try to average things out and perceive what we think the colours should be for that object according to the illumination. So some peoples brains perceive the dress in natural light and will attribute gold and white as sunlight is primarily orange and yellows. But others will perceive artificial light which shades things blue and black. But all this is about an objective process.

    But that doesn't mean some sort of truth exists perhaps in a different way to the objective world. I'm not saying reality doesn't exist in some form only that objective reality is not necessarily what reality is fundamentally made up of.

    If the subject creates reality including the objective world then there may be some truth that we create morality as well. Within all those subjective views and experiences are some truths that make up reality.
     
  15. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    So can't we ask the same questions of morality. Did the pedophile choose to like children, did the young man choose to get violent, or resent and hate a people.

    Does a persons ability and propensity to think and behave in certain ways be it good or bad morally influence their ability to choose not to do wrong. According to some not all choices are on the same level playing field in different people and they cannot help but do wrong.

    Just like they cannot help but like or hate chocolate ice cream. Its much easier for a person who likes chocolate ice cream to choose to eat it than a person who hates chocolate ice cream who has to choose to eat it or not.
     
  16. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,458
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    No, just answer the question I already asked:

    Remember, this is what you said:
    Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice.

    Do you understand now why your statement is false? Some other acts might be about choice, but these things are not.
     
  17. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    Yes I understand what you mean and I agree with you to a point. But I was trying to determine where the line is for what is nature and what is taking responsibility for decision making especially applied to morality.

    At what point do people take responsibility for decisions they make. If someone subjectively hates something they are going to find it easier to 'choose' not to participate in the act. Those who like something will find it harder to 'choose' to resist.

    So it seems the psychological state of a person is closely tied to their ability to choose. The playing filed is rigged in favor of some and not others when applied to morality if what you say is correct. We are robots programmed to taste, feel and view things and we have no choice in the matter.

    If that's the case then because choice is closely tied to our psychological state then people cannot help acting on it. Some people are programmed to be more likely to do wrong and others are programmed to do good.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,714
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Because the Bible makes claims and there is no evidence in the real world that the events those claims speak of ever happened.

    I think either one would be suitable.


    How do I know that reality doesn't exist for us to assign some meaning to? How do you know that it does?

    My view is limited by only accepting what can be shown. I don't see any point in playing games with "what ifs" because that's pure supposition.

    Please show me one example where scientists have said that what you claim is a better fit.

    You say there's plenty and yet you STILL can't give a single actual example.

    I'll ask again:

    Tell me something I can perceive without having any experience of it, and/or something I can experience without having any perception of it.

    Don't know how to tell you this, dude, but our dreams do not tell us about the nature of reality.

    Yes, I did read it, and as you say, different people did see different colours in the dress.

    And that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your claim that people see colours objectively the same way.

    I'm not talking about the process, I'm talking about the END RESULT. The actual experience, the perception people have of the colour.

    That's a mighty big IF you have there, and you've provided absolutely zero evidence to suggest it's anything more than a plot from an episode of Star Trek.
     
  19. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,458
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    If what I say is correct? Well then that's a "no" to my question, you don't get why your statement is false:

    "Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice."

    Did you choose to hate the flavor of your favorite food?

    Did you choose to fall madly in love with me?

    Did you choose to hold the opinion that I am the most clever being in the universe?

    Can you do these things?

    If you cannot, then what I say is correct. If you cannot, then what you said is incorrect.

    Only
    if you can do these things is what I say incorrect. Only if you can do these things, then what you said is correct.

    So can you do these things? The rest of your post is just you pondering over the consequences of this fact being true. That is irrelevant to whether or not the fact is true.

    Can you do these things?
     
  20. stevevw

    stevevw inquisitive

    +588
    Christian
    Private
    OK so I will leave your comment for that thread. I have created a thread on the topic here
    Is there any evidence for the Exodus story in the Bible


    The only thing we can know for sure is our conscious experience.

    That is part of the problem. You are limiting your view to an assumption that has not been proven that reality is only what can be shown empirically.
    Well you are playing games then because the assumption that reality is only physical is a supposition.

    No worries, I thought if you have an open mind you would have known this already as its quite a well known idea within theoretical physics and philosophy.

    A new study claims networks of observers are responsible for determining physical reality.
    The scientists propose that observers generate the structures of time and space. The paper could help yield insights into the God Equation, which attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    another key aspect of their work is that it resolves “the exasperating incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity,” which was a sticking point even for Albert Einstein.
    The seeming incongruity of these two explanations of our physical world — with quantum mechanics looking at the molecular and subatomic levels and general relativity at the interactions between massive cosmic structures like galaxies and black holes — disappears once the properties of observers are taken into account.

    https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-human-consciousness-creating-reality/

    Panpsychism looks to be the most theoretically virtuous theory of matter consistent with the data. I call this the ‘simplicity argument’ for panpsychism.
    Panpsychism is increasingly being taken seriously in both philosophy and science,
    Panpsychism is increasingly being taken up as a serious option, both for explaining consciousness and for providing a satisfactory account of the natural world.
    Panpsychism offers the hope of an extremely elegant and unified picture of the world.

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Case_For_Panpsychism
    I argue for an idealist ontology consistent with empirical observations, which seeks to explain the facts of nature more parsimoniously than physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This ontology also attempts to offer more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up
    panpsychism,

    https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/philosophies/philosophies-02-00010/article_deploy/philosophies-02-00010.pdf?

    So you would rather go on laypeople arguing their examples than on the factual evidence that explains the difference. I already provided that here
    Current evidence suggests that perception becomes conscious at a late-arising stage of focal-attentive processing concerned with information integration and dissemination.

    So if consciousness comes in at a late stage of focal attention then they cannot be the same thing. I can predict that if I do give examples you will only object without any evidence because that's what examples do people keep countering each others examples and no resolution is achieved. Nevertheless lets go through the process. Here are some examples

    Take music. Now perception is based on our senses which are based on the physical processes of our senses. On the one hand the mechanical process of hearing Mozart is about how a bow made of catgut on a violin vibrates against a string to produce the sound and then the mechanical processes of hearing will send the message to the brain.

    But no where in those mechanical processes can we find the experience of being moved by violin music. Its not in the catgut of the bow or string, its not in the mechanical processes of hearing. Its a completely different thing. Perceiving sound is a quantitative measure and experiencing that sound is qualia a qualitative experience.They are completely different and being different are not the same thing.

    Another is that we can meditate into a transcendent experience without perception (seeing or hearing anything).

    How would you even perceive something that has no spacial dimensions.
    Perception is about form and conscious experience is about the formless. So how can they be the same thing. How would you even measure experience as opposed to measuring perceived objects.

    Well perhaps you should do a little research on this. People have the wrong idea about dreams.
    Dreams Are More Real Than Anyone Thought
    Waking reality and dreams are different versions of the same thing.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/202108/dreams-are-more-real-anyone-thought

    Except as I said there is an objective reason why people see the dress as gold and white as opposed to blue and black. If there is an objective reason then how can it be subjective.

    The processes are the objective reasons for the end result.

    Actually I have provided ample evidence for this. You just have either not read it or are dismissing it. I suggest you go back and read it.
     
Loading...