When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

[Caliban]

Those aren't laws, they are axioms of a logical formal system.

The are very often colloquially referred to as law. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a well known term even if a bit old. I grew up being taught it by that phrase. Stanford currently uses the phrase principal:
Aristotle on Non-contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Whatever phrase you use, it doesn't distract from my point that they verify some truth claims.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sure but the only reason atheists don't murder is because they don't want to face the consequences. They can't say that murder is truly "wrong" in an absolute sense. It's a warped world view.

ummmm actually murder is obejctivly wrong, and I think any atheist that thinks about it for 5 seconds will agree...it's kinda in the definition of the word. Heck I would go so far as saying that rape is too.

 

[loveofourlord]

One issue I have with objective morals is it's all fine and dandy to say X is always wrong, but it ignores humanity and reality. it's very easy to say, "X is always wrong no matter what." but then you run into letting woman die because she's got a baby in her and saving her would kill the baby." or, "Lying is objectivly imoral and a sin, so you must tell the nazi's you have jews in the basement." when people say objective morality is absolute, they rarly act that way because most realize every situation is different.

 

[loveofourlord]

There is a problem with arguing from objective morality that I keep thinking of. It might work on a atheist, but you run into a problem when you want to argue with someone else who agrees on objective morality but not the source. Arguing that god is the source of objective morality doesn't help with a muslim who agrees 100% on that, but thinks Allah has decreed that non muslims should be killed, or that stoning a adulteress woman is lawful and such. Using objective morals given by god fail there, and end up having to argue the same way people here are decrying. Objective morals only work for those that agree what the source of them are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The are very often colloquially referred to as law. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a well known term even if a bit old. I grew up being taught it by that phrase. Stanford currently uses the phrase principal:
Aristotle on Non-contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Whatever phrase you use, it doesn't distract from my point that they verify some truth claims.

The Paradoxical Lies within your Logic …

 

[Caliban]

The Paradoxical Lies within your Logic …

This is the last time I will ever respond to you. I find you completely disingenuous, impatient, a completely lacking in open curiosity. I am not interested in you. Don't bother engaging me anymore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is the last time I will ever respond to you. I find you completely disingenuous, impatient, a completely lacking in open curiosity. I am not interested in you. Don't bother engaging me anymore.

And you can carry on your half-baked, moth-ridden reliance upon a dash of Aristotle. And maybe when you finally wake up out of your stupor, apologize to your Christian family for whatever trouble you've put them through.

And I hope that hacks you off. I really do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And let me guess: you think your little business article about a few supposed sociopaths in various professions 'means' something objective, something that somehow ....(and in what nihilistic way you've intended for it to be taken I'm sure I'll never know)....establishes some "point" and thereby derails the whole locus of my thread, ay?

You were quoting the works of psychologists...

Ergo...I reasoned that you valued the opinion of psychologists.

The article I linked included information from a book about psychopaths ...written by a psychologist who spent years studying them.

C'mon. For once, give us a break, Ana! You're smarter than that, I hope.

You brought up psychopaths and sociopaths....not me. If you want to drop whatever point you were trying to make....I won't complain.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You were quoting the works of psychologists...

Ergo...I reasoned that you valued the opinion of psychologists.

The article I linked included information from a book about psychopaths ...written by a psychologist who spent years studying them.

I do value the objective insights of psychologists. Their mere opinions are, however, something I wouldn't pay a plucking dime for.

And my point about your article is that it, as a singular article, does not a world-shaking truth so make ... (and I say this in the best "Yoda-ese" that I can muster). You better have a hell of a lot more, and another point besides, the one your trying to interpose into my mine here. But since you're into citing and posting singular articles, and since you seem to be a little too lazy to try to find any of the ones that I've posted in the bib above, I'll just leave you with the following article [below], and we can all ponder how it intersects your article. (Of course, I'm sure that a few folks who read it will then try to apply its contents to me. But they shan't worry: I'm no professional psychologist. In fact, like a lot of people, I'm just a potential [paying] client who takes my morally subjective and quite prone position ... with more than subjective interest. )

The Darker Side of Professional Ethics

You brought up psychopaths and sociopaths....not me. If you want to drop whatever point you were trying to make....I won't complain.

And what was my point, good sir? Do you remember?

Whichever way the above question may be answered, I have just a note for you: As long as I'm a Christian, there won't be any droppings, especially since we haven't gotten to the point: that some forms of subjectivity, such as that proffered by Kierkegaard and by current Philosophical Hermeneuticist, would suggest to us (however mildly) that our subscription to objectivity does not preclude nor exclude a dynamic interplay with a non-relativistic subjectivity. And if this is the case, and I think that if we all concentrated hard enough to realize this, then we'll come to see that we can expect some level of objectivity to yet remain, and this can be recognized if one is willing to be cognizant of this.

It then follows that in our efforts to extract some recognition of objective morality through diverse ethical accumulations of thought, we'll hit on some common intuitions which are shared by almost everyone on at least a minimal level (unless of course they're for one reason or another in the 5% who aren't able to quite get an intuitive handle on the objective moral necessities that run through our species.)

That's all I've been trying to say.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And what was my point, good sir? Do you remember?

It seemed to be some sort of bizarre modus tollens argument that morality can't be subjective because the classification for sociopaths exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seemed to be some sort of bizarre modus tollens argument that morality can't be subjective because the classification for sociopaths exists.

Yeah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do value the objective insights of psychologists. Their mere opinions are, however, something I wouldn't pay a plucking dime for.

Did you read the link? They aren't making guesses...they've done research proving psychopaths exist in these professions (and many more). There's no reason to believe they aren't following ethical guidelines.

And my point about your article is that it, as a singular article, does not a world-shaking truth so make ... (and I say this in the best "Yoda-ese" that I can muster). You better have a hell of a lot more, and another point besides, the one your trying to interpose into my mine here. But since you're into citing and posting singular articles, and since you seem to be a little too lazy to try to find any of the ones that I've posted in the bib above, I'll just leave you with the following article [below], and we can all ponder how it intersects your article. (Of course, I'm sure that a few folks who read it will then try to apply its contents to me. But they shan't worry: I'm no professional psychologist. In fact, like a lot of people, I'm just a potential [paying] client who takes my morally subjective and quite prone position ... with more than subjective interest. )

You're concerned that I didn't rush to Amazon and buy some of the books you listed?

Let's be clear....that's not going to happen.
Not because I don't like reading, but because I know they don't prove your point.

And what was my point, good sir? Do you remember?

You seem to be claiming that anyone who doesn't morally intuit what you assume they should....is part of a small group of sociopaths and psychopaths and not thereby not worthy of considering their morality.

How do I know you're wrong? Because literally 100% of people who aren't you disagree with at least something that you "morally intuit".

That's everyone....everywhere. Nobody is going to agree with you completely and calling them a psychopath because they don't won't help your argument.

Whichever way the above question may be answered, I have just a note for you: As long as I'm a Christian, there won't be any droppings, especially since we haven't gotten to the point: that some forms of subjectivity, such as that proffered by Kierkegaard and by current Philosophical Hermeneuticist, would suggest to us (however mildly) that our subscription to objectivity does not preclude nor exclude a dynamic interplay with a non-relativistic subjectivity. And if this is the case, and I think that if we all concentrated hard enough to realize this, then we'll come to see that we can expect some level of objectivity to yet remain, and this can be recognized if one is willing to be cognizant of this.

That's a bit telling. Christian says they won't be changing their mind regardless of the evidence.

It then follows that in our efforts to extract some recognition of objective morality through diverse ethical accumulations of thought, we'll hit on some common intuitions which are shared by almost everyone on at least a minimal level (unless of course they're for one reason or another in the 5% who aren't able to quite get an intuitive handle on the objective moral necessities that run through our species.)

That's all I've been trying to say.

Yeah...I get it. You think everyone shares a certain set of values. They don't. This is objectively true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seemed to be some sort of bizarre modus tollens argument that morality can't be subjective because the classification for sociopaths exists.

Nope. That's wasn't it. So, allow me to spell it out a bit more.

Rather, it's that subjectivity isn't necessarily subjective in the 'way' in which we so often allow it to be defined, and being that this is the case, and despite our various ethical matrices, there remains some objectivity among us in our common moral endeavors by which we may conceptualize our seemingly individual morality during our ongoing social actions.

In a nutshell, that's it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you read the link? They aren't making guesses...they've done research proving psychopaths exist in these professions (and many more). There's no reason to believe they aren't following ethical guidelines.



You're concerned that I didn't rush to Amazon and buy some of the books you listed?

Let's be clear....that's not going to happen.
Not because I don't like reading, but because I know they don't prove your point.

You obviously didn't even look at the bib for more than 3 seconds .................................... so don't try to punk me by making a statement that essentially does nothing to refute the inherent points that, while yet latent, may very well be salient.

You seem to be claiming that anyone who doesn't morally intuit what you assume they should....is part of a small group of sociopaths and psychopaths and not thereby not worthy of considering their morality.

How do I know you're wrong? Because literally 100% of people who aren't you disagree with at least something that you "morally intuit".

...there's quite a bit of argument loaded into the pronoun "something." And I notice you do a lot of linguistic obscuration like that, and you've been doing this kind of linguistic gymnastic for quite some time. It's almost like you're trying to ...................... purposely befuddle most of what I attempt to establish. And I'll tell you what: not only do I not appreciate it, I'm on to your 'game'!

That everyone....everywhere. Nobody is going to agree with you completely and calling them a psychopath because they don't won't help your argument.

I never implied that everyone, everywhere, at every meticulously identifiable point has to 'agree with me' or else they're should be seen as a sociopath. No, that's your obscuration at work again. And again, I'm not going to stand for it, in FACT, I'm going to from this point on continue to call you out on it!

That's a bit telling. Christian says they won't be changing their mind regardless of the evidence.

And I'm not just every other Christian, am I? [Not that I'm special, I'm not. But I intend to be different in my thinking, and different I SHALL BE!] So, as the existentialist I am, and being that I'm not beholden to any one particular brand of epistemic analysis or set of assumptions, I ALWAYS open to additional considerations, even that of the fact that sociopaths are present everywhere. But y'now, I don't really care about that point because it's not the locus of contention I intend to make here.

Yeah...I get it. You think everyone shares a certain set of values. They don't. This is objectively true.

You do realize you're statement here is question begging at its best, right?

Let me just say this, too: While I understand the intention to assert a Madisonian pluralism into society and attempt to create a political structure that allows for a multitude of points of view that balance each other and prevent any overt civil conflicts or group tyranny, the fact remains that some point of view (even if not my own) may very well be the one that most approximates the truth of reality, of social reality, maybe even of spiritual reality. So, while certain cultural and social forces may have a vested interest in keeping the peace by maintaining the pluralistic balance of competing ideologies, this vested interest doesn't do away with the fact that there may be more at stake in our shared social reality than "keeping the peace."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. That's wasn't it. So, allow me to spell it out a bit more.

Rather, it's that subjectivity isn't necessarily subjective in the 'way' in which we so often allow it to be defined, and being that this is the case, and despite our various ethical matrices, there remains some objectivity among us in our common moral endeavors by which we may conceptualize our seemingly individual morality during our ongoing social actions.

In a nutshell, that's it.

Some objectivity? To what degree do you think there's "some objectivity"?

Forgive me if I'm skipping ahead here....but this seems like a variant of the old "everyone thinks sexually abusing children is wrong" mainstay of christians.

Are you trying to suggest that anyone who believes otherwise is a psychopath? And as a follow up....are you aware that research already proves this isn't the case?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some objectivity? To what degree do you think there's "some objectivity"?

Forgive me if I'm skipping ahead here....but this seems like a variant of the old "everyone thinks sexually abusing children is wrong" mainstay of christians.

Are you trying to suggest that anyone who believes otherwise is a psychopath? And as a follow up....are you aware that research already proves this isn't the case?

Read my previous post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You obviously didn't even look at the bib for more than 3 seconds .................................... so don't try to punk me by making a statement that essentially does nothing to refute the inherent points that, while yet latent, may very well be salient.

I'm not buying books to have a discussion on here. It's not a bibliography....it's a bluff. Don't get frustrated because I called it.

...there's quite a bit of argument loaded into the pronoun "something." And I notice you do a lot of linguistic obscuration like that, and you've been doing this kind of linguistic gymnastic for quite some time. It's almost like you're trying to ...................... purposely befuddle most of what I attempt to establish. And I'll tell you what: not only do I not appreciate it, I'm on to your 'game'!

Something = moral beliefs. Everyone disagrees with at least some of your moral beliefs. In all likelihood, everyone disagrees with many...even your fellow Christians.

I never implied that everyone, everywhere, at every meticulously identifiable point has to 'agree with me' or else they're should be seen as a sociopath.

I think you read that wrong. Everyone disagrees with you.....everyone.

And I'm not just every other Christian, am I? [Not that I'm special, I'm not. But intend to be different in my thinking, and different I SHALL BE!]

Glad you asked....

You do seem to follow a pattern amongst Christians who regularly engage with atheists on CF. That pattern being...

1. Find a quote, argument, or position held by some atheist somewhere that you can easily attack.
2. Present such argument in a thread.
3. Ask atheists to defend this position as if it's their own.

You do realize you're statement here is question begging at its best, right?

Well? What else are you possibly saying when you claim to believe morality is objective?

Let me just say this, too: While I understand the intention to assert a Madisonian pluralism into society and attempt to create a political structure that allows for a multitude of points of view that balance each other and prevent any overt civil conflicts or group tyranny, the fact remains that some point of view (even if not my own) may very well be the one that most approximates the truth of reality, of social reality, maybe even of spiritual reality. So, while certain cultural and social forces may have a vested interest in keeping the peace by maintaining the pluralistic balance of competing ideologies, this vested interest doesn't do away with the fact that there may be more at stake in our shared social reality than "keeping the peace."

No idea where you're getting this from...

We can discuss this at the individual level (me and you) the group level (two different groups of more than 2) the cultural level (any two clearly delineated cultures) the societal level (any two clearly delineated societies) the national level (any two nations) or a global level (literally everyone) at any point in history....or across all of history....and my position remains exactly the same.

I don't need to make exceptions for my view of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not buying books to have a discussion on here. It's not a bibliography....it's a bluff. Don't get frustrated because I called it.



Something = moral beliefs. Everyone disagrees with at least some of your moral beliefs. In all likelihood, everyone disagrees with many...even your fellow Christians.




I think you read that wrong. Everyone disagrees with you.....everyone.





Glad you asked....

You do seem to follow a pattern amongst Christians who regularly engage with atheists on CF. That pattern being...

1. Find a quote, argument, or position held by some atheist somewhere that you can easily attack.
2. Present such argument in a thread.
3. Ask atheists to defend this position as if it's their own.




Well? What else are you possibly saying when you claim to believe morality is objective?



No idea where you're getting this from...

We can discuss this at the individual level (me and you) the group level (two different groups of more than 2) the cultural level (any two clearly delineated cultures) the societal level (any two clearly delineated societies) the national level (any two nations) or a global level (literally everyone) at any point in history....or across all of history....and my position remains exactly the same.

I don't need to make exceptions for my view of morality.

Well, goodie then, Ana! That just solves everything, doesn't it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, goodie then, Ana! That just solves everything, doesn't it?

It does make it easy to engage others on questions of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It does make it easy to engage others on questions of morality.

And here I thought it was only @Moral Orel who could crack witty jokes ...