(March 16, 2016 at 4:29 am)robvalue Wrote: Yup.

And we've explained how "god's opinion" is subjective anyway.

But people who actually believe in God will probably disagree.  It is hard to get your mind around what it would mean to think that some perfect (though poorly defined) being existed.  Feeling God's presence probably is like being a Jedi.  Even though you don't know how you feel the force, you nonetheless do and feeling it confirms it.  Hell you can make your light saber defy gravity to leap into your hand with that stuff.  Not sure god belief is as powerful as force belief but both are self confirming.

(March 16, 2016 at 6:36 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah...

It's an attempt to remove any doubt, I suppose.

To be fair, CL only says some things are objectively immoral. Which means morality as a whole is still subjective, even if this is conceded. Some people argue the whole of morality is objective, which is a million times more absurd.

And if God turned up and said, "Rape is good. Rape is in my nature", most Christians would still think it is immoral. So his opinion is only valid while it conforms to what they think his opinion should be.

I wonder if there are any Christian groups which think etiquette is objective, or fashion sense.

Sure. They might feel that way, but it's still an incorrect use of the word. It would mean it applies to god as much as anyone else. And it wouldn't be in any way dependent on him.

Of course, if you take a snapshot of his "character" at a certain moment, you can "objectively" base it on that. But I can just as easily use the moral code "kill everyone". That's objective. The code stays the same, regardless of your opinion of it. In this respect, "objective" just becomes "arbitrary and unchanging".

(March 16, 2016 at 4:29 am)robvalue Wrote: I've had the same problem with Roadrunner on another thread. I just don't think people are using the word "objective" properly.

I stated a number of times, how I was using the term. There is another way to use the term as in objective reporting, basically meaning that only the facts are being given, without subjective interpretation. But this is different from our discussion. If you are meaning something different, then you should say so. If we are talking about different things, then it's just a waste of time.

Well, I really can't understand your use of the word I'm afraid. I've tried over many posts and even using a video and I'm still no closer, so I'm afraid I've given up.

(March 16, 2016 at 8:57 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, I really can't understand your use of the word I'm afraid. I've tried over many posts and even using a video and I'm still no closer, so I'm afraid I've given up.

You could define the term, if you feel we are using it differently.

(March 16, 2016 at 8:46 am)robvalue Wrote:

---

Sure. They might feel that way, but it's still an incorrect use of the word. It would mean it applies to god as much as anyone else. And it wouldn't be in any way dependent on him.

Of course, if you take a snapshot of his "character" at a certain moment, you can "objectively" base it on that. But I can just as easily use the moral code "kill everyone". That's objective. The code stays the same, regardless of your opinion of it. In this respect, "objective" just becomes "arbitrary and unchanging".

---

Just curious from this comment... Do you think that hair color is objective or subjective?

Objective means independent of viewpoint or opinion.

Hair colour is objective, as long as we all agree what colours mean what and such. We can have a particular way of measuring its colour which reduces it to its constituents. As long as we all use the same method, we get the same answer.

Of course, recognising by eye what the exact colour is isn't always reliable. That would be an estimate about a fact.

If you can give me a way to determine the morality of an action, that doesn't rely on anyone's opinion about that action, I'd be very interested. Then you have to tell me why I should care about whatever method you've come up with.

We agree on objective ways of assessing reality because it is useful to do so. It's not useful to do the same with morality, as far as I'm concerned.

You could come up with a different way to objectively measure "hair colour" of course, using a different scale and a different language. But as long as we all agree what method we're using, it's an objective fact.

People mostly agree about some general, very vague principles of morality.

Not everyone. So not everyone has agreed on how we determine morality, even at a fundamental level.

And even amongst those who agree on the principles, their idea of how those apply to situations vary wildly. There is no one standard everyone can use in order to all get the same answer, unless you arbitrarily pick one person's standard.

We could pick a standard, like we do with objective measurements. But what would be the point? What is the use?

Everyone thinks they are right, for their own reasons.

Noticing vague evolutionary traits is not "objective morality".