Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where is the Objective Morality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 76478140" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>I think something like Math truths or colours like Red which have no physical state to measure can be regarded as facts/truth as well. </p><p></p><p>The explanation you have given for how gravity works and is measured says nothing about it as an objective truth of reality. It is just a description of what is happening according to assumptions like methodological naturalism and reductionism. For all we know it may be just describing a simulation effect or some magical phenomena caused by some powerful being.</p><p></p><p>We cannot step outside our reality to confirm what is really going on.</p><p></p><p> Yes but only according to a limited method of measuring and describing reality.</p><p></p><p>But if we consider moral realism which is basically about moral reality then we can also determine some facts outside human subjective thinking through rationality. For example we both are prescribing epistemic values and facts to our debate such as "not misrepresenting arguments or using logical fallacies" to prove a point and find the truth of the matter.</p><p></p><p>Epistemic facts are independent of human subjective thinking because they have to be justified and proper. We can certainly choose not to prescribe these epistemic facts but we won’t be able to engage in any coherent debate. But the reality is we do prescribe epistemic facts as they are necessary for human interactions. </p><p></p><p>Some epistemic values are intertwined with moral values. For example epistemic values of how we justify proper knowledge and beliefs in debates relates to “Honesty”. So we are also prescribing “Honesty” by extension when we choose to engage with others in rational debates. Otherwise without “Honesty” we can never find the truth of a matter.</p><p></p><p>Because we are rational beings we can rationalize epistemic and moral values and facts based on independent facts which are beyond human subjective thinking. Just like we do with Math, or colours or a number of abstract truths that affect reality. </p><p></p><p> Yet we need our thoughts to determine truths like in Math and even science. There is a difference between rational thoughts (critical thinking) and subjective thinking. We can reason independent facts beyond our subjective mind. Not necessarily. We can determine abstract ideas like in Math, or like experiencing colours like “Red” or “Love” as independent realities. The fact that you use ideas like “test” seems to point to using a limited method of determining factual reality (methodological naturalism) when there may be other ways we can determine facts/truths.</p><p></p><p>Take “Life” itself. There are good rational reasons why we should value and respect human life. We use those reasons to justify forcing people to conform to things like Human Rights and laws. This is not based on someone’s personal; view but is rationalised as being an independent fact. That is why HR states that these Rights are said to be</p><p></p><p><em><strong>Basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, for no other reason than that they were born human.</strong></em></p><p><a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/covid19-and-human-rights/what-are-human-rights" target="_blank">https://humanrights.gov.au/about/covid19-and-human-rights/what-are-human-rights</a></p><p></p><p>Otherwise are we to say there is no independent justification for Human Rights independent of personal opinions.</p><p></p><p> Then how can we even measure objective reality if there are no human thoughts. How do we know reality exists as it does without any humans? Who said it’s not some simulation when there are no human thought or when so called objective realities may be simulated to look like objective reality. WE could be just measuring a computer software program. We could be measuring Gods creation for all we know.</p><p></p><p>Second we can determine moral truths that are independent of us with the same rational thinking. Though they are not physical laws they are laws none the less like abstract truths independent of us. It just requires a different way of measuring like with proper and justified knowledge and beliefs.</p><p></p><p>I will finsih the rest of this post later.</p><p>Regards</p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76478140, member: 342064"] I think something like Math truths or colours like Red which have no physical state to measure can be regarded as facts/truth as well. The explanation you have given for how gravity works and is measured says nothing about it as an objective truth of reality. It is just a description of what is happening according to assumptions like methodological naturalism and reductionism. For all we know it may be just describing a simulation effect or some magical phenomena caused by some powerful being. We cannot step outside our reality to confirm what is really going on. Yes but only according to a limited method of measuring and describing reality. But if we consider moral realism which is basically about moral reality then we can also determine some facts outside human subjective thinking through rationality. For example we both are prescribing epistemic values and facts to our debate such as "not misrepresenting arguments or using logical fallacies" to prove a point and find the truth of the matter. Epistemic facts are independent of human subjective thinking because they have to be justified and proper. We can certainly choose not to prescribe these epistemic facts but we won’t be able to engage in any coherent debate. But the reality is we do prescribe epistemic facts as they are necessary for human interactions. Some epistemic values are intertwined with moral values. For example epistemic values of how we justify proper knowledge and beliefs in debates relates to “Honesty”. So we are also prescribing “Honesty” by extension when we choose to engage with others in rational debates. Otherwise without “Honesty” we can never find the truth of a matter. Because we are rational beings we can rationalize epistemic and moral values and facts based on independent facts which are beyond human subjective thinking. Just like we do with Math, or colours or a number of abstract truths that affect reality. Yet we need our thoughts to determine truths like in Math and even science. There is a difference between rational thoughts (critical thinking) and subjective thinking. We can reason independent facts beyond our subjective mind. Not necessarily. We can determine abstract ideas like in Math, or like experiencing colours like “Red” or “Love” as independent realities. The fact that you use ideas like “test” seems to point to using a limited method of determining factual reality (methodological naturalism) when there may be other ways we can determine facts/truths. Take “Life” itself. There are good rational reasons why we should value and respect human life. We use those reasons to justify forcing people to conform to things like Human Rights and laws. This is not based on someone’s personal; view but is rationalised as being an independent fact. That is why HR states that these Rights are said to be [I][B]Basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, for no other reason than that they were born human.[/B][/I] [URL]https://humanrights.gov.au/about/covid19-and-human-rights/what-are-human-rights[/URL] Otherwise are we to say there is no independent justification for Human Rights independent of personal opinions. Then how can we even measure objective reality if there are no human thoughts. How do we know reality exists as it does without any humans? Who said it’s not some simulation when there are no human thought or when so called objective realities may be simulated to look like objective reality. WE could be just measuring a computer software program. We could be measuring Gods creation for all we know. Second we can determine moral truths that are independent of us with the same rational thinking. Though they are not physical laws they are laws none the less like abstract truths independent of us. It just requires a different way of measuring like with proper and justified knowledge and beliefs. I will finsih the rest of this post later. Regards Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where is the Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom