Where is the Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

This is what I found:
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact".

I don't see where my post indicated that there is no objective fact in an objective view. Making judgments based on facts rather than prejudice is covered in the definition I applied.

No, objective in philosophy requires a objective agent.

 

[childeye 2]

No, objective in philosophy requires a objective agent.

Respectfully, my post was about an objective view which implies an objective agent that has an objective view.

 

[VirOptimus]

Respectfully, my post was about an objective view which implies an objective agent that has an objective view.

And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.

 

[durangodawood]

And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.

So is it impossible for us to consider anything objectively real?

 

[VirOptimus]

So is it impossible for us to consider anything objectively real?

For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

 

[durangodawood]

For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

For me they are quite meaningful so long as I dont require them to be absolutes.

He put chocolate in the ice cream is generally "objective".
Chocolate is better than licorice is generally "subjective".

Its good to have terms for thinking about whats 'out there' vs what we personally project onto to it.

 

[VirOptimus]

For me they are quite meaningful so long as I dont require them to be absolutes.

He put chocolate in the ice cream is generally "objective".
Chocolate is better than licorice is generally "subjective".

Its good to have terms for thinking about whats 'out there' vs what we personally project onto to it.

I like being precise in my word useage.

 

[childeye 2]

And a human (a subject) can never have a objective view.

A human is a subject? Respectfully, you're confusing a person with a place, as well as misappropriating the term "subject" for use in this context. Objectivity is ascertained by standing in the place where there is an objective view. To claim there is no such thing as a place where there is an objective view is to say there is no such thing as impartiality, fairness, justice. Such an assertion is a foundation for cynicism.

Hence your reasoning ends in a contradiction since your claim that a human can never have an objective view, necessarily means your words are an assertion based on prejudice and not reality.

 

[durangodawood]

I like being precise in my word useage.

I do too.

But precision is not the only value. There's very little in language where the map corresponds precisely to the territory. If you set the bar that high, theres hardly anything you can talk about.

 

[TheWhat?]

For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

I find this slightly confusing. Can you be certain at all that your existence as an agent is objective fact?

 

[TheWhat?]

A variation of the cogito I find to be helpful against solipsism: if you are certain that you are reading the product of an intelligent mind, and that that mind is not your own, then you can be certain that a mind comparatively intelligent to your own has at some point existed outside of your own mind.

 

[TheWhat?]

Besides that, any conversation about objective morality is ill-fated unless all participants can at least agree to begin with a basic assumption that there exists an objective reality.

 

[Bradskii]

The Ten Commandments are those fundamental standards of the Law.
Even if you opt for their most relaxed interpretation, everybody has broken, at least, one of them in their lifetime.

If I couldn't think of an example when I could never lie or steal then you might have an incredibly short list of guidlines which cover an infintesimally small part of the moral landscape. But I can so we don't even have that.

 

[Bradskii]

Being a christian does not make a person perfect .... none of us claim that ... all are in different places with their walk with God .... and we do mess up. Don't look at christians as an example of who God is ..... look at who God is (through the life of Jesus .... who is God.

Yes, we are called to reflect His character .... but we fall short of that .... some worse than others .... and we understand that.

The absolute moral position is contained in the life of Jesus.

Thanks, Elos. But that's yet another way of saying 'we don't know'.

 

[eleos1954]

Thanks, Elos. But that's yet another way of saying 'we don't know'.

no those who study the life of Jesus do know ... He is our example in all things. We know because it is written about His life in the Holy Bible. Now some don't believe that .... that's another matter.

 

[TheWhat?]

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.

We wrote some laws but you ground them to powder.

Jokes aside, it only shows that materialism is inadequate. We can do the same with light and shadow: grind it all down and show me one molecule of light or shadow, and I'll concede that the author has a good point.

And besides this, we need not rely on a transcendent immaterial realm to establish some basic, useful facts. We use maths extensively to make accurate predictions about the world of the senses, and to produce tangible, empirically verifiable benefits: reality is abstract.

 

[Bradskii]

no those who study the life of Jesus do know ... He is our example in all things. We know because it is written about His life in the Holy Bible. Now some don't believe that .... that's another matter.

OK. So you can access objective morality. But if you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?

 

[childeye 2]

OK. So you can access objective morality. But if you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?

Positive prejudice is moral and negative prejudice is immoral. Which is why righteousness is by grace through faith.

 

[Belk]

We wrote some laws but you ground them to powder.

Jokes aside, it only shows that materialism is inadequate.

Inadequate for what? If we are discussing something that is objective, something that is in the material word, materialism would seem perfectly adequate would it not?

We can do the same with light and shadow: grind it all down and show me one molecule of light or shadow, and I'll concede that the author has a good point.

You mean a Photon?

Photon - Wikipedia

And besides this, we need not rely on a transcendent immaterial realm to establish some basic, useful facts. We use maths extensively to make accurate predictions about the world of the senses, and to produce tangible, empirically verifiable benefits: reality is abstract.

Not certain I understand your point here. Can you elaborate?

 

[Bradskii]

Positive prejudice is moral and negative prejudice is immoral. Which is why righteousness is by grace through faith.

That might be a good answer to some question or other. But has nothing to do with what I asked. So I'll ask it again: If you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?