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.
"Morality is objective" and "there exists an objective morality" are two entirely different statements.
They are. The first implies an absolute while the second implies a limited number of instances. That still does not make morality objective if there is an optimum path as far as I can see. Optimum is not synonymous with objective. Optimum would actually seem to indicate subjective since it speaks to an opinion on what is best.
Besides dodging the argument, unfortunately I think you've missed the point.
Rivers cannot predictably form along a path of greatest descent if that path does not first exist.
As someone who has worked with machine learning algorithms, I've had the pleasure of observing how artificial evolutionary algorithms work to cause randomized elements to converge on predefined, optimal solutions, and then re-converge, and on and on. It's a sight to see. And if you're thinking this isn't how evolution works, consider the White-throated rail, a living demonstration.
There need not exist a mysterious world beyond ours to support my argument. I'm saying physical reality in its current state defines its own "world of forms."
Given you're agnostic, I'm assuming you're familiar with the theory of evolution. Many like to assume that everything is void, chaotic and formless. It's possibly because they are not so mathematically inclined or they just prefer to imagine things in a way that makes them feel comfortable for whatever reason.
Science is based on empirical evidence; thus is not subjective.? Are we not part of the universe?
- All empirical science is based on observation.
- Observations require an observer.
- An observer has a particular perspective.
- Perception is in the mind of the observer, ie., subjective.
- All empirical science is subjective.
Forbidden? Probably better stated as not yet observed, especially in the quantum world.Look we can study atoms and discover that certain quantum transitions are forbidden. (Because they violate conservation of conserved properties.) We can study humans and find that some of them murder people and some of them don't. But these objective statements about people's behavior don't lead ineluctably to any oughts.
- All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.
You should. As a rational person who has already agreed to that premise, do you deny any of the logical points that follow?Rights are just agreements or conventions among people and governments. I don't see anything objective about them.
Some values are entirely subjective. Other values are objectively natural to a species.human beings typically value living in a stable society
This is a value that people place on things. It is not some sort of inherent objective value. Gold is only valuable because people value it.
You should.
Is this just your opinion? Or do you have some objective proof to back up these claims.
- All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.
- All others have a reciprocal obligation to respect the rights of others.
Objective means universal?Indeed. I should think the use of the word typical implies occurrences of the atypical that in and of itself implies subjectivity.
Can you prove all humans are characterized as having 2 arms? If not, then yes; it is less objective. And just because humans may be characterized some way, doesn't mean the characteristic applies to all humans; handicap or not.Objective means universal?
No, the human species is characterized by x y and z traits. Those include having two arms. Does every human have two arms? No. So is that particular characteristic somehow less objective?
You are confusing the objective/subjective distinction with something else. Perhaps you are thinking of true/untrue, which is not the same thing at all.Can you prove all humans are characterized as having 2 arms? If not, then yes; it is less objective. And just because humans may be characterized some way, doesn't mean the characteristic applies to all humans; handicap or not.
No; you appear to mistake objective as meaning Universal. Universal means applied to everything, objective means based on fact.You are confusing the objective/subjective distinction with something else. Perhaps you are thinking of true/untrue, which is not the same thing at all.
Yeah. Exactly.....Universal means applied to everything, objective means based on fact.
Just because something is applied to everything, does not make it objective.Yeah. Exactly.
This is different to what I am talking about. I am talking about how a person has decided in advance whether they believe in subjective or objective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective. So a person who thinks morality is subjective has decided that well before they find themselves caught in moral situations be surprise.Just like how you react as though some food is objectively tasty when you have no time to think about things. My analogy continues to win.
It isn't different. You've decided already that taste is subjective, but you'll find a time comes (just like it came before) when someone surprises you by disliking something you love, and you'll think they're wrong to disagree. Sorry, buddy, but it's a perfect analogy.This is different to what I am talking about. I am talking about how a person has decided in advance whether they believe in subjective or objective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective. So a person who thinks morality is subjective has decided that well before they find themselves caught in moral situations be surprise.
You didn’t answer the question. In a free democratic society is each person entitled to their personal moral view even if each person says the other is not entitled to their wrong moral view?Each person will likely say the other is not entitled to his wrong moral view.
Saying “there may be” something that stops a person having a personal moral view doesn’t help us in answering this question. A person can disagree with another person’s subjective moral but that doesn’t stop the other person holding that moral view.There may be, but the other person will not respect that which is in place if he doesn’t agree with it; this is regardless of subjective or objective morality.
You said that like you know the truth that there is no morality outside of sentient beings. How do I know you know the truth on this matter. Isn't this just your personal opinion. See how subjective morality refutes itself. On the one hand people claim morals are subjective and there is no ultimate truth. But on the other hand they proclaim truths like they are objective. So we live like there are objective truths in the world.Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?
I mean in explaining how subjectivity works compared to objectivity and not how they affect people. People often compare personal views about liking or disliking food to personal views about morality. Both are what the person personally thinks and how they see things.My dislike of certain foods does not affect other people; my views of morality does so the two can’t be compared.
Then why do so many people who support subjective moral including the majority of people in this thread compare subjective morality to ‘likes and dislikes’.Subjective morality is not about likes vs dislikes, it’s about right vs wrong, and moral values.
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?