And all of those issues come about because of subjective perceptions that can't be verified objectively.
Ask a person what they witnessed when the incident took place, and you can get a different answer from everyone, because how are they going to verify their perceptions? It's not like they can experience the incident again.
But if you get a video recording of the incident, suddenly it becomes a lot more objective, and it becomes possible to verify what happened. This happens because we are removing the subjectivity of the witness's experience.
But the point is it’s an objective fact that the incident happened and happened a particular way. So we can get some measurements or do some tests to find out what happened. Even eye witness accounts can be factual enough to be used in court and convict someone to a life in prison.
But what if it was personal views of nature where the object is physically there to be measured scientifically. People can still have subjective views of this like a flat earth and yet we can determine the objective facts about that natural object. The point is people can still have subjective views about verifiable objective facts.
There's no actual evidence for that idea though, is there.
There actually are some theories that support this in quantum physics. Basically if there are no observers then there would be no way to verify the physical world. You cannot say that the physical world would be there if there were no observers because you would need an observer to verify this.
We could be in some simulation and physical reality only seems real to our senses because we have been programmed to be that way. When the program is switch off so is all so called reality. Can you definitely say the physical world would be there if there was no observers.
I don't recall ever making that claim. Can you show me where I did?
Its not about making the claim but once you buy into a debate about God and talk about Him like he is real then you have to be open to any arguemnets about God as well. IE
Kylie said
#203
Even granting that God exists, why is morality objective to him?
#445
If God has a certain morality, then it doesn't follow that such a morality is objective just because we are made in his image.
That's assuming God exists, and that's a big IF there.
That’s another debate. You are happy to entertain the idea of Gods morality when you make arguments against God. So I am making an argument why it makes sense for objective morality to come from God.
Put it this way it's not a case of proving if God exists but proving if objective morality exists because if objective morality exists then God exists or at least some transcendental being because objective morality has to come from outside humans yet be grounded in something that understands humans and reasoning.
So what?
You are the one who claimed "...evolution does not explain why we ought to be good..." as though there actually IS an "ought" in there. You have not shown that there's any reason to believe that there's an "ought".
You claimed that evolution was a viable account for morality when you claimed that there were other reasons why humans are morally good such as we don’t steal and kill to ensure society is stable.
I am saying that evolution can only explain how morality came about but it doesn’t explain why the moral behaviours we have are right or wrong. Thus there is no ‘ought’ in the evolutionary explanation for morality so therefore it’s not a valid account for morality.
As I have said several times now, we can't reach a conclusion on the morality of honesty just on the basis that it's honesty.
Let’s stick to specific examples as this is the only way to verify whether there are moral objectives. The specific example is whether you and I can have a debate seeking the truth of a matter without the moral values of Honesty and Truth. If we can’t then Honesty and Truth stand independent of ourselves or any other human in debates as moral laws when seeking the truth of a matter.
In our debate you have implicitly prescribed moral duties such as Honesty and Truth by expecting me to not lie and misrepresent your arguments when you make certain claims and question what I have said as to whether it is true or not. All this will only make any sense if Honesty and Truth stand as independent moral laws regardless of personal opinions.
So the question is can us or anyone have this kind of debate without Honesty of Truth values. If so can you explain how they can? If you can’t explain this then anyone having a debate seeking the truth of a matter will be bound by these values in debates seeking the Truth regardless of their subjective opinions making Honesty and Truth independent moral laws and thus objective.
Again, any lived experience is a SUBJECTIVE thing.
Not if it can be verified that the moral value cannot be denied by subjective opinion. It then becomes similar to a law that is not open to personal views because the moral values are needed to enable the specific interaction.
Without those moral values human interactions like debates on truth are impossible. So it’s like the law of gravity where we cannot defy gravity or deny it by subjective views.
If you have to rely on "believe intuitively," then what you're talking about is not objective.
Why not. It is intuition that causes us to believe the physical world is real and not some simulation. Otherwise how else can be justified that what we sense is real. Science cannot tell us as science may also be some artificial tool we have been programmed with to make us believe that we live our reality. Yet we use our intuition on a daily basis when we experience the world as it is.
The passerby who steps in and tries to stop the abuser does so because their morality tells them it is wrong. The abuser's morality tells them that it is acceptable to abuse the child. This is exactly what we'd expect to see from subjective, not objective morality.
No quite the opposite would be the case it it was subjective morality. As subjective morality is only about the subjects personal moral views then they cannot step in and stop someone else with a different subjective moral view or even think its really wrong because subjective morality is only about different moral views and nothing about any view being ultimately wrong outside the person (subject).
Stepping in or thinking another persons moral view and actiosnare wrong is actually taking an objective position as you are saying not only are my moral views right for me but for everyone. Thats why people with subjective moral views cannot live out their moral position in reality as its impossible to apply in the real world. Thats why they claim one thing (subjectivity) but actually live another reality (objectivity).
Intuition is not objective.
When it comes to reality, whats real, lived moral experience or lived reality of the physical world intuition is self-evident as a measure of reality. Thats because we act like its real and therefore it speaks for itself. In fact people misunderstand intuition. It is actually a process of subconsciously calling upon our lived experiences that gives us evidence of what we can trust as real because we have already tested it through our experiences.
Intuition
Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.
This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.
For example, we do not assume scepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.
So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.
Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.
So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.
Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water.
The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position.
1.2 Self-evidence
The notion of a self-evident proposition is a term of art in intuitionist thought, and needs to be distinguished from certain common sense understandings with which it may easily be conflated. The first thing to note is that a self-evident proposition is not the same as an obvious truth. To begin with, obviousness is relative to certain individuals or groups. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me. But self-evidence is not relative in this way. Although a proposition may be evident to one person but not to another, it could not be self-evident to one person, but not to another. A proposition is just self-evident, not self-evident to someone.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Intuitions are used as Evidence in Philosophy
Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense, they are also a form of information processing. Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
Many take the division between analytic and intuitive thinking to mean that the two types of processing (or “thinking styles”) are opposites, working in a see-saw manner. However, a recent meta-analysis has shown that analytic and intuitive thinking are typically not correlated and could happen at the same time.
Is it rational to trust your gut feelings? A neuroscientist explains[/Quote][/quote]
