Our moral sentiments don't give us our morality, but they give us the impetus to follow the morality we devise. Without them, it would just be a mental exercise.

(October 5, 2018 at 9:53 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 9:30 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, really, it does not, except to point out that fairness and compassion are the basis of morality.

It still appears that you don't understand the terms as used.... which is probably why you don't like them.  I do agree that that fairness and compassion are moral terms and guiding principles.  But that doesn't get you to one ought to be fair and compassionate.  It doesn't tell you that it is right or wrong.   Equating these terms to morality doesn't get you past the issues of the ontology of morality, it just shifts it a little.  And in the end, most people that we would consider sane, do not treat morality as if it is subjective.   Why do you think that is?

Yes, you can't get from 'is' to 'ought'. That is why you need a new axiom. That axiom is that you 'ought' to be fair and compassionate.

I suspect, and as we have recently seen in the discussion on Judge Kavenaugh and other discussions on personal testimony, that there is a set of double standards going on here.   There is a disconnect, between what is said, and the way people behave.  I think that some peoples judgement is clouded, when they think that the discussion is about God, and they are discussing to an end, rather than considering the ideas at hand.

Take for example, if we are talking about a muslum country, with harsh laws against homosexuals.   All of the sudden people who say that morality is just an agreed upon set of rules, agreed upon by the culture, or that it is subjective to the individual, don't judge the morality of these laws based on the society or the individual.  They appeal to something greater.   We see fights recently in the courts, appealing to rights, apart from what is legislated by the majority.   And we see hear often judgement on the morality of the old testament (although I would say often out of context and incorrect in nature).  This is all inappropriate if morality is subjective or based on a societal collective subjectivity. 

I think that I am partially at fault in the discussion, as I let myself be lead off in different directions.   The question is to look at what it means if morality is objective vs subjective;  and to decide which you think best fits reality.   Do you see people arguing that others should behave as if morality is subjective apart from these philosophical discussions?  Do you think that people that behave as if morality is objective have a disconnect from the reality of the world? Is something moral for one person (or society) and immoral for another?  Do you make moral judgments as if they where objective (something outside of and independent of the person)?  The first question of this problem is what is the nature of morality.

I don't think that I can behave as if morality is subjective.  I'm a moral realist.   I think that a man beating his wife is really wrong; despite a societies rules or judgements of it (apart perhaps from some extenuating circumstance, such as protecting a child or something).  I think that societies and cultures can be judged as moral or immoral, and that what an individual thinks, feels, or has a personal preference for.  I don't think that morality is arbitrary, changing or based on the person in any way.   It is outside of the person, and therefore the same for any group or set of people.  I think that people should act in a way, that they say they believe the nature of morality is.   Or is this like the discussion on testimony, being evidence and a justifiable reason to believe, where; when it is thought that the discussion is leading to God, we get one answer, and when about something else, such as a supreme court nominee, you see an entirely different answer (and action).   It is a matter of intellectual honesty, and if one reasons the same.   You need to look at what it means if morality is subjective (dependent on the person) and if it is objective (outside of the subject) and decide what best fits the world we live in, and then I believe that your behavior with morality will reflect accordingly.  However, the first thing may be to make sure you understand what is meant by objective vs subjective in this sense, and watch that you are not confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral)   with ontology (the nature of morality).  I realize, that many are not philosophically inclined or may not like abstract reasoning of this type.   All they care about is what are the rules, and how do I know them (concrete thinking).  However this type of discussion and thought does have an impact on how we view morality and right and wrong.

RR, moral realism is in contrast with divine command theory. That is why I challenged you to point out how they're really not. But you don't want to. You're just trying to tell others moral realism is true, even though your expressed beliefs indicate you really don't accept moral realism.

(October 5, 2018 at 11:17 am)Grandizer Wrote: RR, moral realism is in contrast with divine command theory. That is why I challenged you to point out how they're really not. But you don't want to. You're just trying to tell others moral realism is true, even though your expressed beliefs indicate you really don't accept moral realism.

Ok... I don’t see how that effects the discussion on if moral realism is true especially when concerning atheists. And I don’t believe I have talked about divine command theory, nor wish to diverge into another topic.

(October 5, 2018 at 11:26 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 11:17 am)Grandizer Wrote: RR, moral realism is in contrast with divine command theory. That is why I challenged you to point out how they're really not. But you don't want to. You're just trying to tell others moral realism is true, even though your expressed beliefs indicate you really don't accept moral realism.

Ok... I don’t see how that effects the discussion on if moral realism is true especially when concerning atheists. And I don’t believe I have talked about divine command theory, nor wish to diverge into another topic.

What do you think moral realism is? If objective morality is so, how can this stem subjectively from any being, including god?

(October 5, 2018 at 11:28 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 11:26 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... I don’t see how that effects the discussion on if moral realism is true especially when concerning atheists. And I don’t believe I have talked about divine command theory, nor wish to diverge into another topic.

What do you think moral realism is? If objective morality is so, how can this stem subjectively from any being, including god?

I think you are eqivocating and/or misunderstanding the terms subjective/objective here.

(October 5, 2018 at 11:35 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 11:28 am)Grandizer Wrote: What do you think moral realism is? If objective morality is so, how can this stem subjectively from any being, including god?

I think you are eqivocating and/or misunderstanding the terms subjective/objective here.

Ok, master. Explain to us what is objective vs. subjective then.

(October 5, 2018 at 11:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I suspect, and as we have recently seen in the discussion on Judge Kavenaugh and other discussions on personal testimony, that there is a set of double standards going on here.   There is a disconnect, between what is said, and the way people behave.  I think that some peoples judgement is clouded, when they think that the discussion is about God, and they are discussing to an end, rather than considering the ideas at hand.

Take for example, if we are talking about a muslum country, with harsh laws against homosexuals.   All of the sudden people who say that morality is just an agreed upon set of rules, agreed upon by the culture, or that it is subjective to the individual, don't judge the morality of these laws based on the society or the individual.  They appeal to something greater.   We see fights recently in the courts, appealing to rights, apart from what is legislated by the majority.   And we see hear often judgement on the morality of the old testament (although I would say often out of context and incorrect in nature).  This is all inappropriate if morality is subjective or based on a societal collective subjectivity. 

I think that I am partially at fault in the discussion, as I let myself be lead off in different directions.   The question is to look at what it means if morality is objective vs subjective;  and to decide which you think best fits reality.   Do you see people arguing that others should behave as if morality is subjective apart from these philosophical discussions?  Do you think that people that behave as if morality is objective have a disconnect from the reality of the world? Is something moral for one person (or society) and immoral for another?  Do you make moral judgments as if they where objective (something outside of and independent of the person)?  The first question of this problem is what is the nature of morality.

I don't think that I can behave as if morality is subjective.  I'm a moral realist.   I think that a man beating his wife is really wrong; despite a societies rules or judgements of it (apart perhaps from some extenuating circumstance, such as protecting a child or something).  I think that societies and cultures can be judged as moral or immoral, and that what an individual thinks, feels, or has a personal preference for.  I don't think that morality is arbitrary, changing or based on the person in any way.   It is outside of the person, and therefore the same for any group or set of people.  I think that people should act in a way, that they say they believe the nature of morality is.   Or is this like the discussion on testimony, being evidence and a justifiable reason to believe, where; when it is thought that the discussion is leading to God, we get one answer, and when about something else, such as a supreme court nominee, you see an entirely different answer (and action).   It is a matter of intellectual honesty, and if one reasons the same.   You need to look at what it means if morality is subjective (dependent on the person) and if it is objective (outside of the subject) and decide what best fits the world we live in, and then I believe that your behavior with morality will reflect accordingly.  However, the first thing may be to make sure you understand what is meant by objective vs subjective in this sense, and watch that you are not confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral)   with ontology (the nature of morality).  I realize, that many are not philosophically inclined or may not like abstract reasoning of this type.   All they care about is what are the rules, and how do I know them (concrete thinking).  However this type of discussion and thought does have an impact on how we view morality and right and wrong.

If you want, consider the 'objective' standard of morality to be that we should be fair and compassionate. Then, the actions against gays are clearly immoral.

I have the basic issue: the term 'objectivity' means, to me, that the thing in question is observable and independent of the observer. That is not the case for morality. it does not exist independent of humans.

Also, and independently of whether morality is objective or not,  we have the question: Does the 'objectivity' of fairness and compassion imply the existence of a deity? Not at all.

(October 5, 2018 at 11:36 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(October 5, 2018 at 11:35 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think you are eqivocating and/or misunderstanding the terms subjective/objective here.

Ok, master. Explain to us what is objective vs. subjective then.

If I ask you how tall you are, is that subjective or objective?

As I have explained numerous times, subjective means that it is dependent and based on the subject. Objective means that it is independent of the subject. In the question of how tall Grandizer is, one may be tempted to say that is based on the subject of Grandizer. However this is objective, because the subject making the statement does not determine your height. It is independent of the one observing/ measuring and how they determined their answer, their knowledge of it, or their accuracy.