You said we have to determine the rightness or wrongness. To determine involves human views and opinions.
We only have to determine if there is a truth or fact outside human views.
With a half dozen stones, I can provide undeniable objective proof that 2+2=4. Can you provide undeniable objective proof that rape is wrong? I don't think so.
The stones don't turn into the equation. Six stones ( actually 8) laid out on the ground doesn't mean anything unless there is such a thing as Math and multiplication. The equation and the numbers are abstract things. They don't exist as physical form.
So if human intuition has nothing to do with morality because morality is based outside of humans, what is morality based on?
I guess morality is like a code of right and wrong behaviour. We intuitively know what those right and wrong behaviours are. So we can sense/recognize them I guess. Its based on people treating those known morals like they are objective.
Whether people act in accordance with those moral objectives or not doesn't matter because its the fact that they create a moral code. We would not be able to say any horrible or barbaric behaviour was truely wrong if we didnt have these objective morals to measure things.
You don't need an independent standard of measure in order to say someone is wrong for sleeping with your wife, subjectivity does not require it.
Yes but that subjective opinion only means you think he is wrong. It doesnt say he is really wrong beyond you think.
What if the other person who slept with your wifr says "in my subjective view theres nothing wrong with sleeping with your wife". His opinion is just as valid as yours if we are just talking about moral opinions. Therefore you are at a stalemate where no one can say anything is "Truthfully" wrong.
No, humans agree on the shape of the earth, they don't agree on morals. You cannot compare the two.
So what about the "Flat Earth Society" they think the earth is flat. What about climate, consciousness, quantum physics, evolution, to name a few. People disagree with these and yet there is an objective fact about them being fact or not. Its the same for objective morals. There will be disagreement just like with science.
Human rational thinking is based strictly on human thought. Before you said objective morality is outside of human thought; which is it?
I think if you go back through my post I didnt say that objective morality is outside of human thought. I said objective morality is grounded or based outside peoples subjective thinking. The reason the seperation is needed is because as you know subjective thinking is all about the "Subject" being you or me or any person.
Its about how they see things. So you cannot base objectivity on how people see things otherwise you will get all sorts of answers about what is fact. Its the same with morality. For an objective moral you can't ground it on a persons views. You have to ground it on something outside people like some moral facts or truths that stand regardless of peoples views.
No, math IS agreed upon. If someone claimed 2+2=5, everybody that knows arithmetic will agree that person was wrong, and with a half dozen stones; I can prove them wrong.
So if you can prove them wrong by sharing out the stones then what evidence makes it correct. It can't be peoples personal views and just laying rocks out on the ground doesnt prove anything.
Its the abstract concept of the Math formula that makes it a fact. But the concept is not real. There is no physical part, the rocks are not the Math. The Math makes the rocks something, an equation that the rocks didnt possess before.
No, without humans there would be no such a thing as 2+2=4. If some intelligent being from another galaxy had 6 fingers on each hand, and they constructed a numeric and math system based on the number 12, that would not be something discovered, it would be invented just like our base 10 math was. Get rid of all humans, and math goes away with them.
No, without humans there would be no such a thing as 2+2=4. If some intelligent being from another galaxy had 6 fingers on each hand, and they constructed a numeric and math system based on the number 12, that would not be something discovered, it would be invented just like our base 10 math was. Get rid of all humans, and math goes away with them.
Math covers the entire universe so any alien would need to use the same logic and math we use as Math actually explains how the universe workd. There are perfected equated ratios that need to be exact and no human could have invented that as it already neeeded to be there to make the universe work.
In recent times scientists have discovered that the Universe is made up of precise Math. Too precise to be something invented by humans. That means Math was around before humans came along because the universe was there before humans. But it turns out its a bit of both. The equations and geometry were already there in the universe to make it worked. Math is just the language humans made to explain this.
The fact that 1 plus 1 equals 2, or that there’s an infinite number of primes, are truths about reality that held even before mathematicians knew about them. As such, they’re discoveries – but they were made using techniques invented by mathematicians. For example, according to Pythagoras’ theorem, the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This is true for all right-angled triangles on a level surface, so it’s a discovery.
Showing it is true, however, requires the invention of a proof. And over the centuries, mathematicians have devised hundreds of different techniques capable of proving the theorem. In short, maths is both invented and discovered.
Was maths invented or discovered?