Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is not a foregone conclusion.
The Ten Commandments are those fundamental standards of the Law.If we cannot find something, we don't even know when someone has found it, nobody can even suggest who might have found it and we can't tell the difference between people who say they have found it but disagree, then...the fact that it doesn't exist is the only conclusion.
For math, I think we derive its basic axioms from observations we make of the world around us. I dont see a similar objective mind independence in a morality that proposed to be transmitted from the mind of God to the mind of humans. So if there is a truly objective morality, it must be out there somewhere in the world.Sorry I didn't read any of the other thread with a similar name, so am probably missing the point of your question. To me of course it is in the minds of sentient beings (like math). Were you looking for a physical location of morality? Like where it resides in some portion of our brains maybe? If that is the case I can just say, I don't know.
Reductionism usually fails for me because it ignores real structures of matter that have capacities beyond the simplest particles.I posted this in the other thread, and it's too good to not post again. From
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Not one particle of morality either. (me)
I think Pratchett's "reduction" is valuable. We should attempt to understand what we are "really" dealing with. Justice is a concept. Mercy is a concept. Morality is a concept.Reductionism usually fails for me because it ignores real structures of matter that have capacities beyond the simplest particles.
Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.
I simply want to know where it is.
If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?
But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.I think Pratchett's "reduction" is valuable. We should attempt to understand what we are "really" dealing with. Justice is a concept. Mercy is a concept. Morality is a concept.
They exist only in the minds of the sapient. They are ideas we construct that we use to categorize actions and states of affairs. "That decision fits in my conception of justice. That one fits in my category of mercy. That act on my list of immoral things."
Once we realize the reality of the "reduction", we can begin to have a rational conversation. Unless one can find a particle of morality, we must default to the idea that morality is an idea.
Whats an example of another thing with a complex location, just so I can see if I'm understanding you...?Or.....localizing the place of "objective morality" might not be a dichotomous or simple act of observance, but perhaps one that is rather complex in nature, even highly complex?
But that's missing the point. Morality isn't anywhere. The point is that you could exhaustively search for it and you won't find it.But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.
Its a terrible test for whats objectively real.
I see. But an exhaustive and fruitless search in the macro world was not mentioned in the quote. I was just going by what was presented to me.But that's missing the point. Morality isn't anywhere. The point is that you could exhaustively search for it and you won't find it.
"YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" is just poetry.
It depends on the aspect of one's mental state. The person who can fully understand two opposing subjective points of view will have an objective view. In Psycholinguistics, the center of a left/right dichotomy exists in an abstract where positive and negative connotations of terms reverse in a true dichotomy.Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.
I simply want to know where it is.
If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?
But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.
It depends on the aspect of one's mental state. The person who can fully understand two opposing subjective points of view will have an objective view. In Psycholinguistics, the center of a left/right dichotomy exists in an abstract where positive and negative connotations of terms reverse in a true dichotomy.
Whats an example of another thing with a complex location, just so I can see if I'm understanding you...?
I respectfully disagree. The adjective "objective" when describing a view, is one without bias or prejudice as opposed to a subjective view. That is how I qualified and applied the term.Thats not what "objective" means.
Thats not how it is defined in philosophy.I respectfully disagree. The adjective "objective" when describing a view, is one without bias or prejudice as opposed to a subjective view. That is how I qualified and applied the term.
ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
- 1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
So who do we turn to to find out what is objectively moral? I keep asking but I get nothing like a straight answer. Now you say that we'll make mistakes in determining what is moral until God gives us the ability. But you know full well that many believers hold many different views as to what is morally acceptable and many of them will tell me that they are acting according to God's will.
And you have no way of telling me which one of them is right.
Do you want me to give you some examples and you can tell me which moral position is the correct one?
Please elaborate.Thats not how it is defined in philosophy.
This is what I found:Look it up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?