Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

I agree that I have argued that if there is no transcendent being there can be no objective moral values and duties. That would logically follow that morality is only subjective. But can you explain what you mean by that even if there is a transcendent being morality would still be subjective? Are you saying that if there was a transcendent being morality would be both subjective and objective or that morality would only be subjective and if so why?

God would be a subject too.

 

[Kylie]

You didn't answer my question. I am asking do you think those who have a different moral opinion to you even if this may be offensive to you, are their moral views valid under a subjective system. I agree that you personally can feel that the other person's view is horrible, but putting your personal input aside and looking at the subjective moral system as a whole are all views allowed to be presented as valid views at the table of subjective morality. If not why.

All I can do is judge their morality based on my own system. I could noit find abuse of women acceptable under my own moral system.

A logical proposition is to be self-supporting so the evidence is the logical conclusion of the proposition. One or more propositions are made and a logical conclusion will follow. The propositions presented are not opinions but assumed truths for example.
"All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." therefore Socrates is mortal.

It is the same for the moral argument for objective morality. We all accept that objective morality cannot come from the subject (humans). That morals only apply to people and that moral behavior has to be reasons. A person cannot just immediately know what is best without reasoning. But we also know that human reason is fallible. Therefore it logically follows that objective morality needs to come from a rational and transcendent being. This helps define the argument and further support may be needed.

But if we go with that, we can have things that are logically valid yet still incorrect, since we have no way of knowing if the propositions are accurate. You must demonstrate that the propositions are sound. Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I think you're missing the point. If you read the article is it's saying that
moral truths don’t seem to be subjective — that is, made true solely by an individual’s whims and feelings — either.
If someone announces his or her belief that undeserved suffering is morally good, this person is mistaken.

So it is saying that people recognize that there are moral truths despite people's opinions. That if someone proclaims their personal opinion that certain moral acts that we all know are wrong were good according we know that person is objectively wrong.

What's the fourth word of that quote?

Yes I have read it but I think you haven't. If you add the rest of that heading which says Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong. This puts things into context. That all humans re a subjective vessel for anything even the factual physical world. This is our first filter that perceives the world through our sense so of course, it is going to be subjective in that sense. We are not robots so even if there are objective morals we choose them rather than being forced or programed to only follow one thing.

But if you read the article it is actually saying that there needs to be some external source for our morality so that it can be measured and not based on personal opinion. The article still supports an independent measure of morality. It just tries to place it in non-transcendent sources like caring for others and what they value. But its still sourcing morality in some form of objective independent measure.

I've already said how the value by which we measure morality can come from us, it does not need to come from an outside source.

You're creating a logical fallacy (false/irrelevant conclusion, strawman, non sequitur) to claim a logical fallacy lol. You are assuming that surveys are only interested in a yes or no response for quantity and factor in questions to determine people's beliefs and attitudes. The linked survey posed a number of questions to determine why and how people believed in their moral positions.

As stated it was not just a simple response of agreeing with objective morality but also defining why they did. So it is a quality survey and not just a quantity one. But I can understand you want to dismiss the survey as it supports what I said that most people know that morals are objective. At least by trying to dismiss it you show that the results are a threat.

Doesn't matter. As soon as you start claiming that it's likely to be true because lots of people believe it, then it's an argument from popularity.

You are underestimating what is being said. People are not pretending at all. It is saying that the case for objective morality is strong that even those who may take an anti-realist position cannot deny that there is a case to moral realism. If anything it exposes the anti-realist position as being pretense as they hold their position despite a good case not to.

The article made the case that there are benefits to acting in a way consistent with morality being objective. That does not mean that morality actually IS objective.

Another example. I'm not the kind of person who feels comfortable making demands of authority figures. But several years ago I acted in a way consistent with being comfortable making demands of authority figures when I spoke to my boss and asked to be given a permanent position at work. I was acting. And it worked out well.

Do you see how people can act in a certain way without that way being actually true?

In light of my rebuttal, I think it only fair that you explain why you think the survey and support for objective morality being believed by most people is wrong rather than just making an assertion.

You are still playing a numbers game. You claim that the survey proves you right because the people asked were qualified in some way to know the issue better than us regular Joe's. And yet, even among the people in the survey, barely more than half said they agreed to objective morals. More than 43 percent of people in the survey disagreed with objective morals.

And if you want to hold up this survey as being accurate, I should point out that 72.8% of respondents stated that there was no God. Of course, I suspect you'll pick and choose what parts of the survey are valid. The bits that you agree with are valid (read: objective morality) but the bits you don't agree with - such as God not existing - you will discard.

Yet you say to me that appeal to how people react/live in their moral lives is not evidence. If this is the case then how humans react like morals are objective must also stand as support.

Humans also act like the Earth is stationary and the sky revolves above it, but we know that isn't true. It's just easier to base our basic worldview on that because it's easier to understand how things work and it makes no difference from most aspects of life.

Nevertheless, I am not sure what point you are trying to make by using animals and their behavior whether its (moral or instinctual for surviving) show how unreal and impractical subjective morality is as a measure for what is right and wrong.

Different animals have what can be taken as moral systems. These moral systems are different to ours. Hence, morality is not objective.

Yet it seems that you can appeal to articles that show philosophers support subjective morality to support subjective morality but when I post support showing that more actually don't support subjective morality it is somehow an argument from popularity.

You were posting your sources to claim, "Most people agree with this, therefore it is correct!"

I freely admit that moral objectivity is the more popular opinion. I never tried to argue that moral subjectivity was correct because it had the numbers to support it. I posted my sources to show that a not-insignificant number of philosophers take the "morality is subjective" position, and therefore there is likely something going for it and we can't just dismiss it.

By the way, I was using the article you linked and it actually supports what I was saying that most philosophers believe that moral realism/objective morality is more of a realistic position to take despite it saying that some support subjective morality.

Here you go with the argument from popularity again...

If we are going to use logical fallacies to reject an argument. Using the fact that there are different views about morality is an obvious logical fallacy as it doesn't discount that morals are not objective no more than saying people who have subjective views about objective physical objects don't show that the physical object is objectively real. IE subjective view the earth is flat doesn't negate the objective view the earth is a sphere.

False analogy. No one is debating the existence of morality. We are debating that nature of that morality. Both flat earthers and globe earthers agree that the earth actually exists, they just disagree with the nature of it.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said all that. Some of it I've explicitly said the opposite. Don't get all snippy with me because you're not paying attention.

Then don't tell us what to call it. You're the one who wanted to argue about conflating nihilism and subjectivism. We didn't introduce extra labels, you did.

Okay, I say there either are moral facts, or there are not moral facts. If that dichotomy is BS, then what's the third option?

OK, then, answer this: Where does the content of our conscience (what Steve calls our "lived moral experience") come from? It is clearly not the product of individual conscious deliberation (which you--and Steve--apparently regard as an exhaustive definition of "subjectivity.") Steve claims that he has proven conclusively that it is objective. What's your position?

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, then, answer this: Where does the content of our conscience (what Steve calls our "lived moral experience") come from? It is clearly not the product of individual conscious deliberation (which you--and Steve--apparently regard as an exhaustive definition of "subjectivity.") Steve claims that he has proven conclusively that it is objective. What's your position?

You're still telling me what I think and don't think. How about answering my question first. You called BS, what's the third option?

 

[stevevw]

Science is not something that describes things that are imaginary. Science shows us that there is SOMETHING causing those effects and it measures those effects.

But there are also aspects of life that science cannot answer yet are real issues that need answering. Some areas which even relate to science like what came before the Big Bang, why does "time" only go forward, where does quantum weirdness end, why does space have 3 dimensions and consciousness.

Then there are the areas of human existence that are associated with philosophical ideas that science cannot answer but still need answers as to whether they are true or false as they affect us like why are we here, what happens when we die, why is there something rather than nothing, do we have a soul and of course morality.

Science can tell us how but cannot answer why questions like why something is right or wrong. It may tell us based on biological evolution that rape and infidelity are natural and have evolutionary advantages, but this does not answer whether the acts are morally right to do.

Believing everything can be answered by science is a form of religion (scientism) which insists that, if a question isn't amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all.

You're right, science does not describe what motivates some intention. Because that stuff is SUBJECTIVE.

That's ridiculous. Are you saying asking the question of is there a soul or why is there something rather than nothing is just something that can only be accounted for by subjective thought? That is a major logical fallacy as it doesn't address the question but makes an assumption that because a question about something science cannot answer must not be a real question we can ask that may have an answer.

That example you used is not self-supporting. It relies on assumptions that are falsifiable.

That is exactly how science works. It assumes something and bases its evidence on this, IE that the universe is only the result of physics so looks for explanations that are only physical. But the universe could be the result of some non-physical events.

You have not shown that it is self-supporting and you have not shown that there is anything that is considered objectively true that is self-supporting.

As with Aristotle's "All men are mortal; Aristotle is a man; therefore, Aristotle is mortal.” The assumption that all men are mortal is a well-founded assumption, it's a given. We act that way every day ie men are not divine beings to be worshipped, they can be fatally wounded.

The same with moral objectives cannot exist in humans. Humans as you continually assert are subjective so their moral views cannot be factual. That is a well-founded assumption and a given. The same with "morals can only apply to people who can reason". Morals logically imply a moral duty. Rocks cannot be moral agents or owe a moral duty to anyone. That is a given. It is up to the skeptic to argue this is not the case rather than just make assertions.

Hold on dude...

I'm not talking about physical things here, am I? I'm talking about logic and how it can be expressed in notation similar to how mathematics is expressed in a particular notation.

Stop shifting the goalposts.

So, therefore, you have just supported what I was saying that some things can be supported without appealing to physical evidence but rather a logical proposition or calculation.

That was not morality. I asked you to do it with morality.

yes it was about logically showing how objective morality can only be grounded in an independent, non-human source. But that is not just the point. You said nothing can be supported that is not concrete and physically supported by evidence. If it's not physical then it's subjective and cannot be questioned regarding it truth status.

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of something that you consider objectively morally correct that increases the amount of pain in the world?

Depends on what you mean by pain. But if we say that everyone has to give up something that will cause them to suffer so that we can have a better world then I can think of many examples. On a small scale, a person may need to give up certain food and put themselves through a tough physical exercise regime that causes them pain to get save their life.

You could use the same logic on a societal or world scale. IE an entire culture needs to give up their unhealthy lifestyle to reduce obesity and heart disease so that it reduces unnecessary disease and death.

Or as a world, we have to change our comfortable lifestyles that use too many resources and pollutes the earth causing global warming. That would require suffering for many as they perceive that having that comfortable lifestyle is what makes them happy. Logically going without will make them suffer which is an emotional pain that can also cause physical suffering and pain.

It equates to a moral position because they are both based on a person's lived experience.

Yes, but in your pain scenario, there isn't both. There is no subjective lived experience because you haven't shown that there is a subjective choice. Therefore it is unlike morality.

That's why pain doesn't equate to moral right and wrong. Sane people will always know that a hot stove will cause pain so there are only an objective choice and no subjective option. Whereas as you say morality is subjective and I am saying despite that subjective view there are objective morals.

I explained clearly my reasons for saying you were all over the place. I'll repeat them: So you go from saying that people act like there are objective morals, and yet now you say that sometimes people DON'T act like there are objective morals?

But you are misrepresenting my argument again. Why is that contradictory that some people can dent moral truths? What about a psychopath who has no conscience. You are trying to make a logical fallacy like people either only act objectively or not. I never said that. That when a person denies objective morality then there shows there are no objective morals. I am making a quality distinction that people despite having subjective morality react like morals are objective.

Are you seriously not paying attention? No, I do not believe that there is any objective morality. Morality is subjective and people form their own morality.

How many times have I said this?

OK then if there are no moral truths then when a person claims that abusing a child or taking your possession is morally OK you cannot truthfully say they are wrong. You can only express your opinion which says nothing about them actually being truthfully wrong. They could take your stuff and say it is perfectly OK for me to do this because that is my subjective moral view which is morally right to me. They are doing nothing wrong according to them. So how can you condemn them? They won't understand what you are on about.

 

[Speedwell]

You're still telling me what I think and don't think.

I am not telling you what you think. I am telling you my impression of your arguments.

How about answering my question first. You called BS, what's the third option?

That the content of our conscience is subjective, even though it is clearly not the immediate product of individual conscious deliberation.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am not telling you what you think. I am telling you my impression of your arguments.

I've barely put forth any arguments to you. What little I did say, you ignored half. Dial it back a notch.

That the content of our conscience is subjective, even though it is clearly not the immediate product of individual conscious deliberation.

Either there are moral facts or there are not moral facts. How does what you've said here relate to the dichotomy I put forth? If the content of our conscience is subjective, then there are no moral facts, correct? Where did I BS you?

 

[Speedwell]

I've barely put forth any arguments to you. What little I did say, you ignored half. Dial it back a notch.

Either there are moral facts or there are not moral facts. How does what you've said here relate to the dichotomy I put forth? If the content of our conscience is subjective, then there are no moral facts, correct? Where did I BS you?

I was under the distinct impression (and forgive me if I was wrong) that it was your position that subjective moral precepts consisted solely in the immediate product of individual conscious deliberation. If that is true, then the content of our conscience must of necessity be objective, by definition, not by argument. That I think is bogus, which is why I object to defining "subjective morality" as only the product of our immediate conscious deliberation--individual opinion, in other words.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's not complex, it's simple logic. You've claimed that ~X is true, now you want X to be true.

I have done no such thing.

But this conversation ends here.

 

[VirOptimus]

But don't consequences imply a good or bad, right or wrong consequence. If so wouldn't that need some reference point to measure what is good or bad, right or wrong? Also, what do you mean when you say "how you want society to function". Do you mean "how society ought to function"? Want seems to imply some sort of standard or criteria that a person wants society to function as. Is this based on any measure such as human happiness, avoiding suffering, a person's "likes or dislikes", empathy, etc.

I have already answered this.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have done no such thing.

You sure did. You claimed that things don't have value, now you want things to be important. That's a value judgement.

But this conversation ends here.

I know, I know. You're just here to preach; you're not open to allowing your claims to be scrutinized.

 

[VirOptimus]

You sure did. You claimed that things don't have value, now you want things to be important. That's a value judgement.

I know, I know. You're just here to preach; you're not open to allowing your claims to be scrutinized.

I dont debate with people who are only here to fight and dont understand the subject.

 

[Moral Orel]

I dont debate with people who are only here to fight and dont understand the subject.

You can't support your claims, you're just here to preach without being questioned. I heard you the first time.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was under the distinct impression (and forgive me if I was wrong) that it was your position that subjective moral precepts consisted solely in the immediate product of individual conscious deliberation. If that is true, then the content of our conscience must of necessity be objective, by definition, not by argument. That I think is bogus, which is why I object to defining "subjective morality" as only the product of our immediate conscious deliberation--individual opinion, in other words.

I think you're assuming I agree with Steve on a lot more than I do. Morality at it's core is based on personal feelings, that's what makes it subjective, and that's about the extent to which I agree with what Steve has said. It's based on personal feelings, and we build a lot of objective facts on top of that base. So it isn't "solely" or "only" any one thing. But it always involves personal feelings.

 

[the iconoclast]

Because there is another link in the chain of communication. "I saw..." becomes "he told me he saw..."

Hey hey brother

My dear, the gospels are a narrative about the life, death, the resuurection and the saying of Jesus.

Jesus is the focal point, the use of first person is not necessary when the subject matter you are describing is not yourself but you are describing what someone else does.

This still shows that a person eye-witnessed it!

Check out John 18:1

John 18;1
'When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.'

When he had finished praying, - I SAW THAT - Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples - AND MYSELF - went into it.'

Good grammar would suggest if you are a disciple then you are included as 'His disciples'.

3rd person narrative is correct grammar. You would only need to express 1st person if you were the focal point or you are required to give evidence to prove something alleged.

What you think?

Ps. See I can read and write. I am also aware of how to correctly use the english language - when i feel like showing that side of me and if necessary. Most times I prefer to be underestimated.

Way more fun!!!

Why should I? I don't care of Catholics believe those things.

Fair enough.

I accept the Real Presence, which is not quite identical to Transubstantiation.

Fair enough.

Is the Holy Spirit included or not? How?

I said "Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. I mean the Holy Spirit is included but.... you have officially perplexed me."

Please forgive me. Something has been lost in translation.

1. Christian scripture are the sole infallible authority for Christians.
2. The Holy Spirit is included.
3. Your remark (.eg "For one thing, I don't have to feel myself trapped by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura") completely baffled me ie left me very puzzled.

I'm puzzled because Scripture is the inspired Word of God and you feeling trapped by its infallibility seems like an odd thing for a Christian to say but hey God will judge you and I.

You are answerable only to God. Not to me.

Do you really want me to explain to you how the Holy Spirit is an infallible source for Christian faith and practise?

You have to make up your mind whether you believe in Sola Scriptura or not. Sola Scriptura provides no role for the Holy Spirit and makes Pentecost just a fancy light show.

How so?

Because I don't believe that the book of Genesis is 100% accurate literal history.

Fair enough. For me, I'm gonna unashamedly 'own it'.

I have no issue with Genesis and am ready to tell anyone that I believe it to be true. I'm Not weak and I will not compromise, I am not ashamed to accept Genesis as 100% truth.

I put my trust in God and the Bible. The words of the so-called 'experts' who trash Genesis are useless to me and won't impact my life in any form.

You do yourself a injustice to think of Gensis the way you do.

Don't let bad philosophy ruin you.

I believe that God intended it to be a different kind of narrative;

And what would that be?

I hate to see the literal inerrancy of Genesis insisted on merely in support of an unsavory right-wing political agenda.

What agenda is that?

I hate to see the history of the Church and biblical exegesis lied about to support it

What about the history of the church and biblical exegesis is being lied about to support what?

and hate to see the hatred and sometimes even violence meted out to Christians who don't agree.

Has this happened to you? What are you talking about it?

That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about.

??!?!!?!

The theory of evolution does not disrespect the Lord. What's your real agenda?

What argument can you give me to backup your claim?

My real agenda? With you, with everyone, in regards to debating evolution on CF or what's my agenda being on CF?

Isn't the Trump administration, which they wholeheartedly support, reason enough?

My dear, Trump is not my president and I'm not American. In regards to left wing and right wing politics/philosophy, I reject them both as worthless.

But I have to admit, it does make me smile when I see someone on the left side triggered by Trump.

I have no interest in Trump and I believe most politicians are corrupt. What ever president you Americans get doesn't matter to me.

It will be all over for you in 2024, then you will have someone new to glorify or demonize. Until then, have a coke and a smile - make it a cherry coke.

So you dislike protestants and creationists because of trump?

That, and I lived in the Bible Belt as an Anglican (A "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie) long before Trump was elected.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. What happened to you? What did they do to you and how has your life been disadvantaged because of it?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Wow! Welcome back; I thought you forgot about me.

Hey hey Ken.

Ahhh cheers hey hehehe. So far you seem civil and polite. I like that, you are a true gentleman.

Trust me I have not forgotten you. My memory surprises me sometimes but I have to admit that i do record all conversations on cf. Your name is on the top of my list.

Good to see you back and I see you’ve come back with a vengeance (LOL)

Shucks

Usually I don't get this reaction. You have put me in a good mood and I would like to extend my - sincere - best wishes to you. Pls don't take this as an insult by God bless you and your house, I'll say a pray for you.

Dude I'm at a 3 right now, you should see me at 5. ;p

Yeah but apologists and others may claim some universal law, but they don’t agree on what those universal laws are.

Could you give me an instance or an example of such a thing?

They will 100% agree on everything else objective; (like math, or the tree in my front lawn) but for some reason when it comes to the details of morality, nobody agrees. Funny how that works huh? (LOL)

Let's see what example you give me and ill judge if it is funny or if this statement holds true.

I won’t comment on what other atheists think; they probably wrong too!

Please excuse me. Your information says you are an atheist, what do you mean by they are probably wrong too?

If I were to label myself;
I'm Christian.
I'm from the protestant branch of Christianity.
My denom within protestant Christianity is Pentecostal.

How would you label yourself using a similar format?

I disagree! How many people have you heard claim Abortion is murder?

Most of the Christians I have met believe abortion is murder - I admit I have not spoken to every Christian on God's earth.

Most non Christians I have met or spoken to seem to believe abortion is not murder. I have not spoken to every non Christian. There's always an exception to the rule and there is always an anomaly.

Universal standard for abortion?

Thou shalt not murder. What do you think about my reply and why would you not accept that this objective standard is from God?

You are asking the impossible. Morality can’t be demonstrated as right or wrong, thus is is not demonstrable; hence my point.

You say morality cannot be demonstrable. What criteria would be needed to demonstrate morality?

What does morality need to demonstrate to make it demonstrable?

Correction; those were not morals of society you were (hypothetically) breaking, they were the laws of society

What's the difference between morals and laws?

Why can't laws be moral as well as legalistic?

Of course!

So obedience to your morality is a form of virtue. My behaviour would show high moral standards because your morality is superior to everyone else's. You know better.

Acknowledging your standard and obeying it is righteous. You know better therefore if I follow your lead and hold to your standards then you will not be upset.

There we have it. Obedience shows a high moral standard.

The only time I believe obedience of the law is virtuous is when I subjectively agree with those laws.

What is an example of a law you subjectively agree with that would make obedience to it virtuous?

What's an example of a law you don't accept which would not met the criteria?

I believe empathy is one of many parts of the standard, because I see far more good from it than bad.

If something is completely free from faults or defects, it is perfect. You say there is more good in empathy then bad, what bad Do you speak of?

Nasty/unpleasant taste.

Sewerage has a nasty and unpleasant taste - don't ask - but I wouldn't describe that taste as bitter.

Give it another shot. Explain bitter to me without comparing it to sweet?

I believe my moral beliefs are superior to all others, yet they are in a constant state of growth and evolution.

What state of growth and evolution do you refer to?

Why are your moral beliefs more superior than all others?

When I an opposing moral belief is explained to me in a way that I find superior to mine, I adopt this new moral belief as my own, and it becomes a part of my moral beliefs. This is how I grow. This is how I learn. I am constantly learning and growing via my contact with society.

How so? Could you give me an instance?
What is an example of a moral belief that was superior to your own THAT you accepted?

I never said I wouldn't try to convince you, I was just pointing out I probably wouldn’t have much luck with it.

Well that's an unfair assumption.

I want to take a page from your book and do as you do - remember you said you were a good authority to me.

Convince me, I am open to this sort of discussion. You now do not have to assume you won't have any luck. Try it.

It is only fair to the person doing the judging. Remember, morality is the judgment of actions; not the actions themselves.

So. How can just morality be fair if its subjective?

I will get to the rest of your replies later

Nice. Lucky for me I'm replying to you a week later.

I consider it unfair

So. How did you come to a decision that I was unfair

How do you come to a decision that I am immoral?

6What influences your decision?

I never said it was acceptable without empathy.

Ok. How did you come to a conclusion that gay marriage is acceptable with empathy?

Remember when I said I regard my moral judgments superior to all others? Unless you can prove otherwise, anybody who disagrees with me is wrong as far as I am concerned.

Why are you more correct then all of us?

Why is going against your moral standards wrong?

How did you come to a decision or judgement regarding such a thing?

If you stole from me, you should return my property or reimburse me.

So if I have to reimburst you I am in debt to you?

Yes or no and If so, why?

I never said there was no point in conversing with you in 1E

Well converse with me. I'm waiting for you to do what you said you would do.

If you are morally inept, I could teach you to be morally competent like me.

How can I trust that you are morally competent?

What can you teach me and why should I listen to you?

Lots of people can give you moral guidance. Remember, I’m convinced mine is superior to all others.

You seem to ignore the questions I've been repeating some of them.

What else can you offer me as so far it's seems to be nothing!

What can you offer me or what more can you offer me?

My opinion.

THAT answer is not satisfactory.

How do define your views as honest and fair? What makes them so?

By having a conversation

Well I'm having one with you now but I want you to convince me, seeing that your moral beliefs are superior and you have suggested that I take you as an authority.

Heads up you need to take this discussion with me more seriously. Your lack of detail suggests to me that you do not want your position under attack.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch. Where's @Ophiolite.

 

[stevevw]

All I can do is judge their morality based on my own system. I could not find abuse of women acceptable under my own moral system.

OK, so do you agree that this does mean that anyone who views abusing children, women, or stealing as Ok are morally wrong outside your opinion as in objectively wrong.

But if we go with that, we can have things that are logically valid yet still incorrect, since we have no way of knowing if the propositions are accurate. You must demonstrate that the propositions are sound. Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Yes that's right you can't make any claim. But I am not making any claim for objective morality as I explained with the logical argument. Though it assumes objective morality is true it provides support for how objective morality needs to be grounded.

As far as providing support for objective morality itself that is where the support from lived experience comes in. I realize we have gone down this path but that is the only way anyone including the experts can provide support. Perhaps this video may provide a different way of explaining why we should be justified to believe there is objective morality based on 5 different supports as follows

Argument from Epistemic realism

Experience
Moral disagreement
Moral progress and convergence
Intuition

Primarily these supports are what I have proposed earlier that we can be justified to believe objective morality exists based on our lived experience. The argument from Epistemic realism is one way to show this.
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k

In case you do not understand moral realism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

What's the fourth word of that quote?

You mean the word "seem". Gee for someone who was going on about me making a point of semantics you seem to use it a lot when convenient. The point is you offered it as support for showing that most philosophers support subjective morality and yet here we see the opposite even if it seems that way. Yet there are quotes in that article that are definite as well that subjective morality is not what humans believe accounts for morality.

I've already said how the value by which we measure morality can come from us, it does not need to come from an outside source.

But do you agree that the measure for the moral value that comes from people cannot go further than the individual. It offers no independent evidence in an argument between people in determining who is right about an act being morally wrong. Therefore even an evil act cannot be determined as truthfully wrong thus you cannot condemn it independently from yourself.

Doesn't matter. As soon as you start claiming that it's likely to be true because lots of people believe it, then it's an argument from popularity.

Luckily the survey linked was an analytic one and not just about popularity then and also qualifies why people believe in objective morality.

The article made the case that there are benefits to acting in a way consistent with morality being objective. That does not mean that morality actually IS objective.

No it makes the case that there are objective moral values. The case is not just built on empty assertions but on evidence that justified why those people believe there is a strong case for objective morality. That is how the evidence for objective morality is presented.

There is no other way. There is no physical objective we can measure so it is what people believe based on the indirect evidence which is how we live like there are objective morals. That is why I have been emphasizing lived moral experience.

Another example. I'm not the kind of person who feels comfortable making demands of authority figures. But several years ago I acted in a way consistent with being comfortable making demands of authority figures when I spoke to my boss and asked to be given a permanent position at work. I was acting. And it worked out well.

Do you see how people can act in a certain way without that way being actually true?

Your missing the point. You are really talking about being assertive. Assertiveness is like morals and not something we can pick up like a physical object and measure. The only way is to measure the indirect evidence. So if I said that assertiveness exists as a trait then the way I support that is to show examples of the lived experience of people being assertive.

The same with all character traits, feelings, and morals which cannot be directly measured. So in supplying support for objective morality I need to show the way people react to moral situations objectively despite them claiming they only believe in subjective morality.

I can point out as evidence that the person acted in a way that they really believe that certain acts are morally wrong for all people and do not accommodate subjective views. That despite claiming morality is a matter of personal views they are really saying that it is not a matter of personal views. Just like the evidence shows assertiveness is a real thing it shows objective morality is a real thing.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey brother

My dear, the gospels are a narrative about the life, death, the resuurection and the saying of Jesus.

Jesus is the focal point, the use of first person is not necessary when the subject matter you are describing is not yourself but you are describing what someone else does.

This still shows that a person eye-witnessed it!

Check out John 18:1

John 18;1
'When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.'

When he had finished praying, - I SAW THAT - Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples - AND MYSELF - went into it.'

Good grammar would suggest if you are a disciple then you are included as 'His disciples'.

3rd person narrative is correct grammar. You would only need to express 1st person if you were the focal point or you are required to give evidence to prove something alleged.

What you think?

Ps. See I can read and write. I am also aware of how to correctly use the english language - when i feel like showing that side of me and if necessary. Most times I prefer to be underestimated.

Way more fun!!!

As I said at the beginning, a third person narrative may be an eyewitness account. It's interesting that you use the Gospel of John as an example--the only Gospel the least likely to have been authored by an eyewitness.

I said "Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. I mean the Holy Spirit is included but.... you have officially perplexed me."

Please forgive me. Something has been lost in translation.

1. Christian scripture are the sole infallible authority for Christians.
2. The Holy Spirit is included.
3. Your remark (.eg "For one thing, I don't have to feel myself trapped by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura") completely baffled me ie left me very puzzled.

I'm puzzled because Scripture is the inspired Word of God and you feeling trapped by its infallibility seems like an odd thing for a Christian to say but hey God will judge you and I.

No, I would feel trapped f had t believe what you believe about scripture. That the Gospels are all eyewitness accounts or they're trash; that Genesis is 100% literal history or Jesus died for nothing, etc.

You are answerable only to God. Not to me.

Do you really want me to explain to you how the Holy Spirit is an infallible source for Christian faith and practise?

I don't need you to explain that to me; how could you, when you have just denied it:

"Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

What agenda is that?

I don't know--you tell me. There must be some reason you believe something so goofy about Genesis. No essential point of Christian doctrine requires it.

What about the history of the church and biblical exegesis is being lied about to support what?

That all Christians always and everywhere have regarded the literal inerrancy of Genesis as essential doctrine until some of us were lead astray by Darwin.

Has this happened to you? What are you talking about it?

Not to me so much. When I lived among "Bible-believing" Christians I was younger and more formidable and known to own guns myself. I soon put a stop to the bullying of my kids by their teachers and things of that kind. But it is within living memory that Bible-believing Christians would hang randomly selected black men for fun and many of them still nurture a grudge for having lost the war 150 years ago.

What argument can you give me to backup your claim?

That the theory of evolution does not dishonor Jesus? It doesn't even mention Jesus.

So you dislike protestants and creationists because of trump?

No, I dislike Trump because he is pandering to them and empowering them at the expense of the religious liberty of the rest of us.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you're assuming I agree with Steve on a lot more than I do. Morality at it's core is based on personal feelings, that's what makes it subjective, and that's about the extent to which I agree with what Steve has said. It's based on personal feelings, and we build a lot of objective facts on top of that base. So it isn't "solely" or "only" any one thing. But it always involves personal feelings.

Do you not believe that our consciences have any content that we do not personally and intentionally put there ourselves?