The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

It seems a basic consideration of debates/discussions that things asserted to be true should be able to be demonstrated to be true. If interlocuters can't abide by this agreement, then there is no discussion to be had; the dissenters are here only to assert.

Again, you're imposing a standard: "things asserted to be true should be able to be demonstrated to be true." Yes, you did say "should," but now it seems you are imposing a morality.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, you are positing a statement without supporting the veracity of it. With your 1+1 analogy you are essentially positing Socratic logic, or some variant of it, as objectively true. You really are only saying, "what I pose is true, you need to establish your positions."

No; what I am saying is using the rules of Math, 1+1=2. That is a provable, demonstratable fact. There is never a case when it equals any other number. This claim is objectively true, not only because I say it is, but because according to the subjective rules of math it is true.

The existence of morality, by a scientific definition, poses no greater metaphysical barrier than do other "objects."

Really? Then prove rape is wrong. Not based on what you believe to be true, not based on what someone else said is true, but based on objective demonstratable facts.

You seem to be saying that, "morality is a social construction,

True.

but my understanding of logic is objective truth."

Logic can be an objective truth, but it isn’t always.

Your positions need to bear the same onus that you demand for others; regardless of whether the statement is about morality or not.

What else are you looking for?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

No; what I am saying is using the rules of Math, 1+1=2. That is a provable, demonstratable fact. There is never a case when it equals any other number. This claim is objectively true, not only because I say it is, but because according to the subjective rules of math it is true.


Really? Then prove rape is wrong. Not based on what you believe to be true, not based on what someone else said is true, but based on objective demonstratable facts.

True.

Logic can be an objective truth, but it isn’t always.

What else are you looking for?

Rules of Math:
Who or what created these rules? What indeed makes them incontrovertible? Regarding the specifics of your statement 1+1=2, there has indeed been serious inquiry into the nature of what 1 equals. I believe that it is in the field of Fractals and Benoit Mandelbrot. (I'm not 100% sure of those specifics though as that has not been my field of study.)

You state: "This claim is objectively true, not only because I say it is, but because according to the subjective rules of math it is true." How can the "subjective" rules of math somehow be know as "objectively" true by a subjective entity (person)? If the rules of math are indeed "subjective" and you are also "subjective" what is your basis to claim they are "objectively true"?


Morality:
Your comment does not address the issue that I posed. My point was that the existence of anything (object, concept, etc.) bears the same metaphysical and, to the point of this debate, epistemological onus as any other object or concept. If you can only assert that 1+1=2 without establishing how this is objectively true, then your positions are merely faith statements. I personally do not care what you believe in, but you must bear the same scrutiny that you expect of others. It would be dishonest of you otherwise.


Your last statement:
"Logic can be an objective truth, but it isn’t always." Here, again, you are positing a statement which, if I am correct, you hold to be objectively true. However, what is the basis by which you conclude that it is objectively true? It seems that you are establishing your own personal understandings of the world as a basis for objective truth. Yet at the same time, you challenge others for the same.


What else am I looking for:
Consistency in your positions.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

Rules of Math:
Who or what created these rules?

Humans

What indeed makes them incontrovertible?

Humans agree on the rules of Math

Regarding the specifics of your statement 1+1=2, there has indeed been serious inquiry into the nature of what 1 equals.

When it comes to Arithmetic, humans agree on the quantity of 1

I believe that it is in the field of Fractals and Benoit Mandelbrot. (I'm not 100% sure of those specifics though as that has not been my field of study.)

Humans also agree on the Numeric system; which includes the quantity of 1. Sounds like yo boys are wrong.

You state: "This claim is objectively true, not only because I say it is, but because according to the subjective rules of math it is true."

That was my mistake. I meant to say “according to the objective rules of math”….

Morality:

Your comment does not address the issue that I posed. My point was that the existence of anything (object, concept, etc.) bears the same metaphysical and, to the point of this debate, epistemological onus as any other object or concept.

Metaphysical and Epistemological? C’mon; I’m not talking philosophy here, I’m talking about that which is based in reality. Remember; that which is objective should be demonstrable.

If you can only assert that 1+1=2 without establishing how this is objectively true, then your positions are merely faith statements.

But I can demonstrate the claim is objectively true! If I give you one apple, then I give (+) you 1 more apple, you will now have 2 apples. That is objective proof using the rules of math, that 1+1=2; rather than some philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I personally do not care what you believe in, but you must bear the same scrutiny that you expect of others. It would be dishonest of you otherwise.

I just did. If you disagree, show me where I’ve gone wrong.

Your last statement:

"Logic can be an objective truth, but it isn’t always." Here, again, you are positing a statement which, if I am correct, you hold to be objectively true. However, what is the basis by which you conclude that it is objectively true?

Logic is just a method people use to reason concerning that which is valid. One apple plus another apple equals two apples is a way one might reason, it is also objective. Apples taste better than oranges is another way one might reason; which is subjective not objective.

It seems that you are establishing your own personal understandings of the world as a basis for objective truth. Yet at the same time, you challenge others for the same.

Exactly what did I say that gave you that impression?

What else am I looking for:

Consistency in your positions.

I invite you to point out anything i said that is inconsistent.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

If, according to your answer, humans create math and the rules of math, then math is a social construct.

Humans' making the rules of math incontrovertible the most nonsensical point that you've made thus far. Surely you cannot mean this. If that is your position and you are "sticking to it", then you are denying the evolution of human knowledge. Was it incontrovertible when science held that earth was the center of the universe? It seems that you would have to say, "yes, for those people at that time." That would utterly destroy your claims of objective truth.

Regarding, your comments on [my] "boys", your comments seem to be slipping into ad hominem slights. It is telling when you discount serious academic inquiry. Benoit Mandelbrot was an esteemed intellectual. I encourage you to look him up.

Your statement:
"Metaphysical and Epistemological? C’mon; I’m not talking philosophy here, I’m talking about that which is based in reality. Remember; that which is objective should be demonstrable." (emphasis mine)

By this rule that you are attempting to impose a standard, (this is one example of the inconsistency of your positions) you must now demonstrate how "that which is objective should be demonstrable. " Up until this point all you are doing is asserting your suppositional beliefs. The statement, that which is objective should be demonstrable, is a statement of your beliefs and you have failed to demonstrate how this is true for all time, in all places, and in all circumstances. Is short, this is a faith statement.

Furthermore, your statement, "I’m talking about that which is based in reality" is the same. On what basis can you demonstrate that this is not a construction of your mind. How does it universally apply (objective truth) to all people at all times and in all circumstances?

Logic:
You did not address my questions. Your response is an anecdotal defense of your position.

Since you admit that you are basing your personal experiences as your basis for objective truth, what are the reasons that you challenge any individual, Christian or otherwise, regarding their understandings of objective morality? (This is another example of your inconsistent positions)

If you can claim your understandings of the world are your personal, subjective, basis for claiming objective truth, then how can you even begin to challenge any other person when they base their understandings of the world, including morality, by what you would claim was their subjective beliefs?

Finally, to go back to my first point in this specific post, if math is a social construct, how is that social construct "objective truth" and, as you have previously stated, the social construct of "morality" not?

What is your basis to say one social construct is objective truth and another social construct isn't?

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

If, according to your answer, humans create math and the rules of math, then math is a social construct.

Agreed.

Humans' making the rules of math incontrovertible the most nonsensical point that you've made thus far. Surely you cannot mean this. If that is your position and you are "sticking to it", then you are denying the evolution of human knowledge. Was it incontrovertible when science held that earth was the center of the universe?

No; they were wrong due to lack of knowledge concerning the Universe.

It seems that you would have to say, "yes, for those people at that time." That would utterly destroy your claims of objective truth.

No; without humans the Earth would still orbit the Sun. Without humans, math would not exist on Earth.

Regarding, your comments on [my] "boys", your comments seem to be slipping into ad hominem slights. It is telling when you discount serious academic inquiry. Benoit Mandelbrot was an esteemed intellectual. I encourage you to look him up.

Better yet; since he isn't here to defend his position, how about if you provide an example where 1+1 equals something other than 2

statement:

"Metaphysical and Epistemological? C’mon; I’m not talking philosophy here, I’m talking about that which is based in reality. Remember; that which is objective should be demonstrable." (emphasis mine)

By this rule that you are attempting to impose a standard, (this is one example of the inconsistency of your positions) you must now demonstrate how "that which is objective should be demonstrable. " Up until this point all you are doing is asserting your suppositional beliefs. The statement, that which is objective should be demonstrable, is a statement of your beliefs and you have failed to demonstrate how this is true for all time, in all places, and in all circumstances. Is short, this is a faith statement.

*Subjective is based on personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs.
*Objective is based on observation of measurable facts
Measurable facts can be demonstrated as true.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Furthermore, your statement, "I’m talking about that which is based in reality" is the same. On what basis can you demonstrate that this is not a construction of your mind.

Provide an scenario where 1+1=2 is just a construction of my mind first, Then I will respond.

How

does it universally apply (objective truth) to all people at all times and in all circumstances?

Because humans agree on the rules of math. In order for 1+1 to equal anything else, you have to break the rules of math.

Logic:

You did not address my questions. Your response is an anecdotal defense of your position.

If my response was not sufficient, tell me what type of answer are you looking for.

Since you admit that you are basing your personal experiences as your basis for objective truth, what are the reasons that you challenge any individual, Christian or otherwise, regarding their understandings of objective morality? (This is another example of your inconsistent positions)

Again; that which is objectively true, can be demonstrated as true (1+1=2, Lead is heaver than aluminum, Gasoline is heaver than water, etc. etc.)

That which is moral/immoral cannot be demonstrated as right/wrong; if it could you would have answered my question by proving rape is wrong already.

If you can claim your understandings of the world are your personal, subjective, basis for claiming objective truth, then how can you even begin to challenge any other person when they base their understandings of the world, including morality, by what you would claim was their subjective beliefs?

That’s where the discussion begins. Whoever makes the best argument wins!

Finally, to go back to my first point in this specific post, if math is a social construct, how is that social construct "objective truth" and, as you have previously stated, the social construct of "morality" not?
What is your basis to say one social construct is objective truth and another social construct isn't?

Because one social construct (math) is based on objective rules, the other social construct (morality) is based on what is believed to be right vs wrong IOW beliefs, personal opinions, and interpretations.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, this is not special pleading for Yahweh.
efm: Yes it is. Minds are necessarily subjective. You don't get ad hoc you're way out of that.

I notice you did not respond to my example of animal instincts. So do you deny that animal instincts objectively exist? I believe most scientists would disagree if you do.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, since it is part of who He is, it is not just something He arbitrarily made up.

efm: Did he choose his own nature, or did he not?

If he did, then it's arbitrary.

If he didn't, then there is necessarily an independent standard to which his nature is being measured.

Which horn of Euthyphro would you care to impale yourself on?

No, He did not choose His own nature and there is no independent standard to which is nature is being measured unless you have some evidence for such a standard. He has the standard within Himself and it is the standard by which the moral laws of the universe which He created are based.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not just me, but many historians and biblical scholars believe it too.

ken: Some who are already inclined to believe, believe that. I'm not impressed.

No some are former atheists and agnostics.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not if they are claiming to be a Christian. Those have been the criteria for determining God's truth for at least 2000 years for the overwhelming majority of Christians.
ken: If you are both purporting to have received 'revelation' from Yahweh, you stand on exactly the same ground - nothing at all.

No, generally in most cases especially in areas of morality and salvation, someone's beliefs can be determined and judged to be right or wrong by studying the linguistic and historical context of the biblical texts.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Agreed.

No; they were wrong due to lack of knowledge concerning the Universe.

No; without humans the Earth would still orbit the Sun. Without humans, math would not exist on Earth.

Better yet; since he isn't here to defend his position, how about if you provide an example where 1+1 equals something other than 2

*Subjective is based on personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs.
*Objective is based on observation of measurable facts
Measurable facts can be demonstrated as true.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Provide an scenario where 1+1=2 is just a construction of my mind first, Then I will respond.

Because humans agree on the rules of math. In order for 1+1 to equal anything else, you have to break the rules of math.

If my response was not sufficient, tell me what type of answer are you looking for.

Again; that which is objectively true, can be demonstrated as true (1+1=2, Lead is heaver than aluminum, Gasoline is heaver than water, etc. etc.)

That which is moral/immoral cannot be demonstrated as right/wrong; if it could you would have answered my question by proving rape is wrong already.

That’s where the discussion begins. Whoever makes the best argument wins!

Because one social construct (math) is based on objective rules, the other social construct (morality) is based on what is believed to be right vs wrong IOW beliefs, personal opinions, and interpretations.

Your responses have not been sufficient. You need to establish a basis for your positions.

You state that math is a social construct and you call it "objective truth."
You state that morality is a social construct and you call it "subjective truth."

You have not established how one is objective truth and the other subjective truth. You, continually, posit that 1+1=2 as "proof" that math is objective. Yet you change the rules for morality. If the rules (unsubstantiated rules) that you demand are that humans socially construct objective truth, then that same rule applies to morality. And, therefore, by your own standards objective morality exists.

To summarize your position:

Position #1: 1+1=2 : objective truth
Position #2: It is immoral to murder : subjective truth

Position #1 you base on humans agreeing to a construct. However, Position #2 is equally a human construct, yet you title it subjective truth.

You need to "demonstrate this as a fact" (your standard) how one is objective truth and the other subjective truth. So far, you're using circular logic:

Math is true because humans constructed 1+1=2. (In other words, math is objectively true because we subjective humans say it is objectively true.)

How does this differ than:

Objective morality is true because we subjective humans agree that objective morality exists; e.g. murder is wrong?

Continually positing 1+1=2 demonstrates nothing in any truly objective sense; it is anecdotal. If all or most humans agree on this construct, this does not demonstrate how it is "objective truth." If, for example, in the distant future, humans become more enlightened to agree to a counter-construct for that equation they will look back at persons like yourself with a sense of pity. Similar to how we tend to view those who once thought the earth was flat.

Simply put, you have not demonstrated anything other than you have a strong faith in yourself and your personal experiences. This is not a satisfactory basis to make any claims for or against objective morality existing.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I notice you did not respond to my example of animal instincts. So do you deny that animal instincts objectively exist? I believe most scientists would disagree if you do.

It's an irrelevant point.

My mind objectively exists. That does not mean that things that are a product of my mind, such as my value assessments, are objective in the same way.

No, He did not choose His own nature and there is no independent standard to which is nature is being measured

Yes, there is an independent standard to which you are measuring him. If anyone comes to you with a description of a Yahweh that orders genocide (for example), you would say no, you have it wrong. That is not Yahweh, because Yahweh would never order such a thing.

That necessarily implies an independent standard to which you are comparing him. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from being Yahweh.

You have chosen the horn of independent standard.

No, generally in most cases especially in areas of morality and salvation, someone's beliefs can be determined and judged to be right or wrong by studying the linguistic and historical context of the biblical texts.

That will give you, at best, a linguistic and historical perspective of their writings. It does nothing whatsoever to provide an epistemology for 'revelation'.

 

[Strathos]

How are we going to celebrate page 100?

 

[Ken-1122]

Your responses have not been sufficient. You need to establish a basis for your positions.

You state that math is a social construct and you call it "objective truth."
You state that morality is a social construct and you call it "subjective truth."

Yes I have. Math is based on rules; morality is based on what is believed. If you ask 10 people a math question, all 10 people will not only give you the same answer, but they will show you the exact same method of arriving to that answer.

If you ask 10 people if “X” is wrong, half of the people will say it is right, and the other half will say it is wrong, and they will each explain different reasons for why they believe it is right or wrong. Why do you suppose that is?

You have not established how one is objective truth and the other subjective truth. You, continually, posit that 1+1=2 as "proof" that math is objective. Yet you change the rules for morality. If the rules (unsubstantiated rules) that you demand are that humans socially construct objective truth, then that same rule applies to morality. And, therefore, by your own standards objective morality exists.

No, the rules of math are substantiated; the rules of morality are unsubstantiated .

To summarize your position:

Position #1: 1+1=2 : objective truth
Position #2: It is immoral to murder : subjective truth

Position #1 you base on humans agreeing to a construct. However, Position #2 is equally a human construct, yet you title it subjective truth.

You need to "demonstrate this as a fact" (your standard) how one is objective truth and the other subjective truth. So far, you're using circular logic:

Position #2 is a human construct, but humans have not agreed on it. That is the difference. If morality were defined as that which is in line with the law of your God, morality would be objective; but morality is not defined that way

Math is true because humans constructed 1+1=2. (In other words, math is objectively true because we subjective humans say it is objectively true.)

I never claimed humans were subjective but.....

How does this differ than:

Objective morality is true because we subjective humans agree that objective morality exists; e.g. murder is wrong?

Again when you look at issues like gay marriage, interracial marriage, killing animals and eating their flesh, the use of Nuclear weapons during war, progressive tax systems, and countless other moral issues these subjective humans (as you call them) do not agree on if these issues are moral or immoral

Continually positing 1+1=2 demonstrates nothing in any truly objective sense; it is anecdotal. If all or most humans agree on this construct, this does not demonstrate how it is "objective truth." If, for example, in the distant future, humans become more enlightened to agree to a counter-construct for that equation they will look back at persons like yourself with a sense of pity. Similar to how we tend to view those who once thought the earth was flat.

The only way that would happen is if they scrap the current math system for something else. As long as we employ the current math system, 1+1 will always equal 2. However with morality, if you look at historical trends, it is in a constant state of change. Why do you suppose this is?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

You still are going in circles.
"Math is based on rules."
You say that these "rules" are socially constructed. If they are socially constructed, how, then, can they be "objective." The best that you could say, by your own standards, is that the "rules" of math are a socially constructed system that all/most subjective humans agree to. How in any way can this be known as an objective truth? How can subjective beings create objectivity? This is the burden that you bear and that you have not answered.

The best, it seems, that you can answer is to say that "we humans declare what objectivity is." However, this does not establish anything. If "we humans declare that there is a god," this does not establish any higher being. It is nonsense. Your position is the same; a faith statement. You are creating out of your will. (This is another example of the inconsistency of your positions.)(You cannot base your positions on anything other than your beliefs and life experiences, yet you chastise others for the same when they espouse differing beliefs.)

To the scientist, (I am assuming that you'll respect science) the human system of math is a phenomenon. Also to the scientist, moral motions are equally a phenomenon. You haven't even come close to "demonstrating" (your standard) the qualitative difference between the two. You have, continuously, attempted to equate human agreement with objectivity. This too, you've left unsubstantiated. On what grounds, on what basis, does subjective human agreement equal objectivity?

"Morality is based on what is believed."
Here is another example of a statement of your beliefs. You have not established this as an objective truth. You, undoubtedly, will retort that humans don't agree on morality. If that's your response, you still bear the burden to "demonstrate" (your standard) how human agreement somehow, someway creates objectivity.

Perhaps you are confused as to what objectivity is.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

You still are going in circles.

I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.

"Math is based on rules."
You say that these "rules" are socially constructed. If they are socially constructed, how, then, can they be "objective.

Are you suggesting a system created by society (socially constructed) cannot be objective? If so, explain why.

" The best that you could say, by your own standards, is that the "rules" of math are a socially constructed system that all/most subjective humans agree to.

Except for the part about humans being subjective, I could say that also. But explain why you think my position is limited the way you claim.

How in any way can this be known as an objective truth? How can subjective beings create objectivity? This is the burden that you bear and that you have not answered.

Humans create laws, and laws are objective. If I tell you it is illegal to do “X”, all I have to do is show you a law on the books that says “X” is illegal, and that would prove my claim to be objectively correct.
Do you agree? If not please explain.

The best, it seems, that you can answer is to say that "we humans declare what objectivity is." However, this does not establish anything.

No. Objective is that which is based on fact. If a claim can be proven as factually accurate, that would be an objective claim; sorta like my legal/illegal example provided above. Do you agree? If not explain why

To the scientist, (I am assuming that you'll respect science) the human system of math is a phenomenon. Also to the scientist, moral motions are equally a phenomenon. You haven't even come close to "demonstrating" (your standard) the qualitative difference between the two.

I have several times; I said Math equations can be demonstrated as accurate, moral claims can not be demonstrated as accurate. If so, demonstrate why the use of Nuclear weapons during war is moral, or immoral.

You have, continuously, attempted to equate human agreement with objectivity. This too, you've left unsubstantiated. On what grounds, on what basis, does subjective human agreement equal objectivity?

You’ve obviously misunderstood me. I’ve never said human agreement equals objectivity. I may have said something akin to; the fact that people disagree on morality should indicate to you it is not objective, but I never said agreement equals objectivity; sounds like a simple case of misunderstanding to me.

"Morality is based on what is believed."
Here is another example of a statement of your beliefs. You have not established this as an objective truth.

Wikipedia defines morality as:
the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper
Morality - Wikipedia

Now; to me that sounds like something based on what is believed; obviously you disagree so how about if you give me YOUR definition of morality so we can have an understanding going foreword.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Attending church is not a moral issue for unbelievers but the other two are universal moral issues.

efm: Nope. You can argue that they are moral issues if you like (you will fail, because they're amoral), but you cannot begin to make a case that they are 'universal'. All I would need to disprove such an assertion is one counterexample, and I have one - me.

How do you know that they are amoral? Since you dont believe in objective morality then anything can be moral or immoral just based on how you feel about it or whether it is somehow "good" or "bad" for sentient beings. But you dont even know what is good or bad for such beings since you dont believe in objective morality or objective value. Also what is your definition of sentient?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, sociological studies have shown that regular churchgoers are more law abiding than non-churchgoers.

efm: Wrong. You've been thoroughly schooled on this point before.

Is denying God moral? (Atheists)

When you actually look at such studies, and the critiques of them, you will find that social activity in general is beneficial. There is nothing magical about church attendance. Clearly not, since more secular nations (and states, and cities) are better off than the religious ones. There are some outliers on either side, but the overwhelming trend is blatantly obvious.

I am not denying that engaging in social activity is good for people, but do you have any actual studies that show that non-churchgoers are just as law abiding than church goers? Because there have been multiple studies that show churchgoers are more law abiding.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not claiming any authority, I am just speaking about all the evidence for God's authority.

efm: You don't have any. You have people purporting to speak on Yahweh's behalf. Nothing else.

But there is scientific evidence that the bible has a divine origin.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Christian moral philosophy has been established as the most rational.

efm: What part of I do not grant you that ground did you not understand?

Oh I know you don't, I am just stating a fact that even many Christians don't realize. So maybe a few Christian lurkers can hear this truth and research for themselves.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
They may be objectively quantifiable but they are based on an irrational sentimentality for your own species. There is no objectively rational reason to base morality on the well being of homo sapiens above other species since they are just another animal. If there is no God, then there is nothing special about humans.

efm: That of course, is conflating standards with values. Values are necessarily subjective.

The value of humans is objective, because our value is based on our being created in the image of the creator. This is an objective fact if God exists and most of the evidence points to His existence. But if there is no God then humans are no more valuable than a cockroach.

efm: In this case, they are subjective to the fact that I am a sentient being with the capacity for suffering and wellbeing, which is why I've adopted that as the standard. If there were no other animals in the universe, this would still be my position. That's an irrelevant point.

How do you know that suffering is bad? And what is your definition of well being? Hitler and Stalin thought that they were furthering the well being of their people by slaughtering those they thought were enemies of their people. On what basis can you condemn them since they were doing things on the same basis as your moral decisions though different conclusions.

efm: For that matter, so is Yahweh.

So is Yahweh what?

efm: If Yahweh didn't exist, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

If Yahweh existed and was opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

If Yahweh existed and was supportive of harm and opposed to wellbeing, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

Yahweh, or any other magical non-entity you care to imagine, simply does not enter into the equation of any moral consideration I make.

But how do you determine what is harm and what is well being? Many people consider some types of suffering good, it helped strengthen their character or helped them get closer to their god or many other things. See above about how some people think about what is well being.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

I don’t understand why you aren’t getting this.

Are you suggesting a system created by society (socially constructed) cannot be objective? If so, explain why.

Except for the part about humans being subjective, I could say that also. But explain why you think my position is limited the way you claim.

Humans create laws, and laws are objective. If I tell you it is illegal to do “X”, all I have to do is show you a law on the books that says “X” is illegal, and that would prove my claim to be objectively correct.
Do you agree? If not please explain.

No. Objective is that which is based on fact. If a claim can be proven as factually accurate, that would be an objective claim; sorta like my legal/illegal example provided above. Do you agree? If not explain why

I have several times; I said Math equations can be demonstrated as accurate, moral claims can not be demonstrated as accurate. If so, demonstrate why the use of Nuclear weapons during war is moral, or immoral.

You’ve obviously misunderstood me. I’ve never said human agreement equals objectivity. I may have said something akin to; the fact that people disagree on morality should indicate to you it is not objective, but I never said agreement equals objectivity; sounds like a simple case of misunderstanding to me.

Wikipedia defines morality as:
the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper
Morality - Wikipedia

Now; to me that sounds like something based on what is believed; obviously you disagree so how about if you give me YOUR definition of morality so we can have an understanding going foreword.

I am quite certain that I am "getting this" very well.

"Humans create laws."
Conflating legal laws and the debate on what constitutes objectivity is nonsense and possibly obfuscation. It is irrelevant to this debate.

However, to address this in a different way, humans creating laws makes my point too.
When you state, "....and laws are objective," it seems that you are confused regarding what objectivity is. The legal code, in the western traditions, is, by in large, a derivative of the will of the people. This is irrelevant to the nature of objectivity or subjectivity. Enacting a law requires, in the western traditions, that at least a simple majority of people to agree on "X."

In other words, it requires humans to accept and agree to a valuation regarding a legal concept. This is identical to your math analogy (1+1=2). 1+1=2 requires humans to agree on the valuation. In other words and for example, humans must agree that 1 = the opposite of non 1 (Socratic logic in some form). With humans providing the valuation, the construct of "math rules" is subjected to human agreement (valuation) of the terms. With the rules of math being subjected to human valuation, it is therefore subjective and definitely not objective. Thus, you, again, have not established how the rules of math are objectively true.

It seems clear that your position is that humans create objectivity. This is a perfectly legitimate proposition, however, it is wholly unsubstantiated. You, according to your standards, must "demonstrate" how this is objectively true. Again, you are clearly demanding of others what you do not expect from yourself. It seems clear that you are demanding the framework by which to debate from. That is, you are expecting others to agree to your bases of logic and understanding before "legitimate" debate can proceed. I am challenging you to live by your own standards.

To establish math rules as objectively true, you will need to "demonstrate" (your standard) that these rules are not subjected to human valuation. For example, humans accepted as fact that the earth was flat at one point in our history. This was later accepted to be false. You must "demonstrate" how in, say, 10,000 years human enlightenment will not accept a different understanding. Objectivity necessarily means that human valuation is immaterial and unnecessary to "X's" existence and definition.

Finally, "my" definition of morality is irrelevant to a debate on whether or not morality can be objectively true.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How do you know that they are amoral?

Because they don't enter into the realm of moral consideration. Which is to say, they don't necessarily concern harm and wellbeing.

Since you dont believe in objective morality

I do believe in objective morality. Just not what you consider to be objective morality, which isn't objective at all.

But you dont even know what is good or bad for such beings since you dont believe in objective morality or objective value.

I do know what is 'good' or 'bad' for such beings. 'Good' is that which increases wellbeing, reduces harm, or does both. 'Bad' is that which reduces wellbeing, increases harm, or does both.

As to whether that is valued, that is necessarily subjective, and invoking Yahweh will not magically make it objective. Ever. 'Objective value' is an oxymoron.

Also what is your definition of sentient?

As it pertains to this discussion - capable of experiencing harm or wellbeing.

I am not denying that engaging in social activity is good for people, but do you have any actual studies that show that non-churchgoers are just as law abiding than church goers?

Here's one, but you have to pay for it,

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x

But I encourage anyone reading along to do their own research. Just for example, try googling 'US states by crime rate' and 'least religious US states', and notice a blatant pattern emerge.

Because there have been multiple studies that show churchgoers are more law abiding.

I am not aware of any that demonstrate an exclusive benefit of church attendance in this regard, so you will have to provide them if you want to make your point.

But there is scientific evidence that the bible has a divine origin.

I've seen what you consider to be 'evidence' on this point. I am unimpressed, to put it politely.

The value of humans is objective, because our value is based on our being created in the image of the creator.

No, being 'created' is not a means of determining objectivity. You will not ever get around the fact that value is necessarily subjective, no matter how many theological buzzwords you invoke.

Hitler and Stalin thought that they were furthering the well being of their people by slaughtering those they thought were enemies of their people.

They thought that, and they were wrong. People being wrong in their assessment does not change the fact that harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable. People are wrong about all sorts of things that are objectively quantifiable, all the time.

So is Yahweh what?

Utterly irrelevant to morality.

Even assuming he exists, there is no means of gleaning if he has a moral code.

Even assuming he exists, and that he has a moral code, there is no means of gleaning what that moral code is.

Even assuming he exists, and that he has a moral code, and that we have a means of gleaning what that moral code is, there is no reason why that code should necessarily be adopted.

But how do you determine what is harm and what is well being? Many people consider some types of suffering good, it helped strengthen their character or helped them get closer to their god or many other things.

That is a good question. Some harm may be good for you, in the long run. Chemotherapy, for example, makes people terribly nauseous and uncomfortable, but it can treat cancer, which is worse than being nauseous.

Other examples are more esoteric. Some people choose to view the death of a loved one as a 'test' of their own emotional fortitude, and ultimately good for them, which is a coping mechanism some people use in dealing with loss. Other people see it differently.

And that's ok. The fact that there are these more ambiguous moral areas, does not mean we need to throw up our hands and say 'well, I guess we can't tell if breathing is good for us, or drinking motor oil is harmful'. We can still tell black from white, despite the fact that grey exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am quite certain that I am "getting this" very well.

"Humans create laws."
Conflating legal laws and the debate on what constitutes objectivity is nonsense and possibly obfuscation. It is irrelevant to this debate.

However, to address this in a different way, humans creating laws makes my point too.
When you state, "....and laws are objective," it seems that you are confused regarding what objectivity is. The legal code, in the western traditions, is, by in large, a derivative of the will of the people. This is irrelevant to the nature of objectivity or subjectivity. Enacting a law requires, in the western traditions, that at least a simple majority of people to agree on "X."

In other words, it requires humans to accept and agree to a valuation regarding a legal concept. This is identical to your math analogy (1+1=2). 1+1=2 requires humans to agree on the valuation. In other words and for example, humans must agree that 1 = the opposite of non 1 (Socratic logic in some form). With humans providing the valuation, the construct of "math rules" is subjected to human agreement (valuation) of the terms. With the rules of math being subjected to human valuation, it is therefore subjective and definitely not objective. Thus, you, again, have not established how the rules of math are objectively true.

It seems clear that your position is that humans create objectivity. This is a perfectly legitimate proposition, however, it is wholly unsubstantiated. You, according to your standards, must "demonstrate" how this is objectively true. Again, you are clearly demanding of others what you do not expect from yourself. It seems clear that you are demanding the framework by which to debate from. That is, you are expecting others to agree to your bases of logic and understanding before "legitimate" debate can proceed. I am challenging you to live by your own standards.

To establish math rules as objectively true, you will need to "demonstrate" (your standard) that these rules are not subjected to human valuation. For example, humans accepted as fact that the earth was flat at one point in our history. This was later accepted to be false. You must "demonstrate" how in, say, 10,000 years human enlightenment will not accept a different understanding. Objectivity necessarily means that human valuation is immaterial and unnecessary to "X's" existence and definition.

Finally, "my" definition of morality is irrelevant to a debate on whether or not morality can be objectively true.

Respectfully,
T R-R

In my previous reply, I asked you 5 questions that I would like you to respond to. Doing so would give me a better understanding of your position. I will respond to your above post when I get a little more time

Thanks
Ken

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

In my previous reply, I asked you 5 questions that I would like you to respond to. Doing so would give me a better understanding of your position. I will respond to your above post when I get a little more time

Thanks
Ken

Ken, regarding the answers to your questions that you seek, see below. I do hope that you will reciprocate and answer the questions that I have and will continue to pose.

1. Are you suggesting a system created by society (socially constructed) cannot be objective? If so, explain why.


This point is irrelevant until a basis is established. Which is entirely the point I have been making to you. You have not “demonstrated” how a “system created by society (socially constructed)” can be objective.

Humans can agree that “X” is “objective”, but, as my analogy regarding a god, it does not establish how “X” is objective. It is merely a belief that humans agree “Y = objectivity.” You need to demonstrate, to be an honest person and debater, how human agreement, or any other human construct, is objective. How does a subjective being know objectivity?

Any ideation or construct is necessarily filtered, interpreted, etc, through the subjective lens of the subjective being. For example, (and assuming the metaphysical nature of these things exist and they are knowable,) we see blue through the limited light of our sun. Does blue have a different meaning if we were able to view it through a brighter sun? Would blue have an absolute meaning if we could view it in absolute light? All you can do is interpret blue with the experiences that you have; subjective experiences.


2. Except for the part about humans being subjective, I could say that also. But explain why you think my position is limited the way you claim.

See my answer above.


3. Humans create laws, and laws are objective. If I tell you it is illegal to do “X”, all I have to do is show you a law on the books that says “X” is illegal, and that would prove my claim to be objectively correct.
Do you agree? If not please explain.

See my answer in my previous post.


4. No. Objective is that which is based on fact. If a claim can be proven as factually accurate, that would be an objective claim; sorta like my legal/illegal example provided above. Do you agree? If not explain why

See my answer above.


5. I have several times; I said Math equations can be demonstrated as accurate, moral claims can not be demonstrated as accurate. If so, demonstrate why the use of Nuclear weapons during war is moral, or immoral.

This is irrelevant. The debate that Zed originated was regarding whether or not objective morality exists.

Respectfully,
T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

I am quite certain that I am "getting this" very well.

"Humans create laws."
Conflating legal laws and the debate on what constitutes objectivity is nonsense and possibly obfuscation. It is irrelevant to this debate.

However, to address this in a different way, humans creating laws makes my point too.
When you state, "....and laws are objective," it seems that you are confused regarding what objectivity is. The legal code, in the western traditions, is, by in large, a derivative of the will of the people. This is irrelevant to the nature of objectivity or subjectivity. Enacting a law requires, in the western traditions, that at least a simple majority of people to agree on "X."

How laws came to be, who created them, how they were created has nothing to do with them being objective. The fact that legal and illegal clams can be demonstrated as accurate, (by simply pointing to the law concerning the claim) is what makes the claim objective.

In other words, it requires humans to accept and agree to a valuation regarding a legal concept.

No. There are many laws people don’t agree on. For example; there are people who don’t agree on the laws concerning abortion. But even those who don’t agree with these laws, will agree it is legal and can point to the law that says abortion is legal.

This is identical to your math analogy (1+1=2). 1+1=2 requires humans to agree on the valuation. In other words and for example, humans must agree that 1 = the opposite of non 1 (Socratic logic in some form). With humans providing the valuation, the construct of "math rules" is subjected to human agreement (valuation) of the terms. With the rules of math being subjected to human valuation, it is therefore subjective and definitely not objective. Thus, you, again, have not established how the rules of math are objectively true.

Math does not require a consensus. If a mad man, or an ignorant, man wanted to insist 1+1=3, it wouldn’t change the fact that the sum is 2. That which is objective does not require human consensus; humans are wrong all the time.

Ken, regarding the answers to your questions that you seek, see below. I do hope that you will reciprocate and answer the questions that I have and will continue to pose.
1. Are you suggesting a system created by society (socially constructed) cannot be objective? If so, explain why.
This point is irrelevant until a basis is established. Which is entirely the point I have been making to you. You have not “demonstrated” how a “system created by society (socially constructed)” can be objective.
Humans can agree that “X” is “objective”, but, as my analogy regarding a god, it does not establish how “X” is objective. It is merely a belief that humans agree “Y = objectivity.”
You need to demonstrate, to be an honest person and debater, how human agreement, or any other human construct, is objective. How does a subjective being know objectivity?

No. I provided you the definition of “objective” Remember? And you did not disagree with the definition I provided. According to the definition I provided, the claim 1+1=2 is an objective claim because it can be demonstrated as true; it’s based on fact. Humans make claims all the time; some of these claims are objective, others are subjective. Now if you want to disagree with the definition I provided, that’s one thing; but to claim I never demonstrated how a human is capable of making objective claims; that is untrue.

Any ideation or construct is necessarily filtered, interpreted, etc, through the subjective lens of the subjective being. For example, (and assuming the metaphysical nature of these things exist and they are knowable,) we see blue through the limited light of our sun. Does blue have a different meaning if we were able to view it through a brighter sun? Would blue have an absolute meaning if we could view it in absolute light?

I dunno! Would it still look blue?

All you can do is interpret blue with the experiences that you have; subjective experiences.

No; I interpret blue with my sense of sight; not my experiences.

See my answer above.

Your answer above does not address the questions I asked.

This is irrelevant. The debate that Zed originated was regarding whether or not objective morality exists.

Then provide an example of a moral claim and explain why it is objective, without using God in your explanation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
While theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely that someone who has lived their life as a murdering rapist would sincerely repent on their deathbed

efm: If it's possible, then it's a valid internal critique. But you don't even have to take the extreme example of the deathbed for the point to be made. Suppose a serial rapist, torturer, murderer and cannibal simply converted later in life.

Oh look, that actually happened Jeffrey Dahmer - Wikipedia

Belief, not behavior, is the only relevant factor to your moral philosophy. As such, it's not moral at all.

Again, it is extremely unlikely that those types of people sincerely repent if they even get the chance since in many cases they are either killed by the government or someone else and that is exactly what happened with Dahmer. People like that are usually not ashamed or feel guilty of what they have done. From what I have read Dahmer only "converted" because of pressure from his father not out any real sense of remorse or guilt. Most of his life and while he committed these acts he was an atheist and even said that since there was no God, he did not have to worry about getting punished in the afterlife.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, Christ said that there are different levels of hell, so an atheist that does good deeds will be in one of the "better" levels of hell.
efm: Ah, so the atheist philanthropist has a lesser degree of eternal pain and suffering than say, Hitler. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmer still enjoys eternity in Heaven.

See above about Dahmer but there are also different levels in heaven. So a sincere deathbed conversion after a life of terrible sin, at the best would be the lowest levels of heaven.

efm: And while we're on it, the victims that Jeffrey Dahmer raped, tortured, murdered and ate are all suffering in hell forever, too. They were homosexuals and fornicators after all, which according to you are 'universal' moral issues.
So, you've not exactly fixed the problem. To put it politely.

No, we dont know that, some may have been only backslid for a time and sincerely felt guilty about their behavior and may have repented many times before of their sinful sexual behavior and therefore will be in heaven.