Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Hi RR, thanks for your reply. I'm sorry you've been sick, I hope you feel better.
I thought a video reply would make a more interesting and digestible response. Clearly in your case, I misjudged so I apologize. I wonder if anyone else has any feedback about whether my video was useful or just plain inferior to a text response? I'm genuinely interested. If it's bad, I want to know. If I could alter the format, any feedback is welcome.
I can't make a lot of sense of what you're saying. You seem to agree that morality is a judgement call, agree everyone makes different judgement calls, but then start calling it all objective. That doesn't seem in any way accurate or useful. If you didn't properly take in what my video said, then I don't really feel like repeating it all in text version.
I just can't understand your arguments I'm afraid. I don't know what you're driving at, or why. The idea that we behave "as if" there's an objective morality is blatantly false. Even if we agreed on a principle like "improve wellbeing", then how we apply that principle is entirely subjective. Wellbeing is not a simple, well-defined concept. We all decide what we think is best, and we don't agree. I wildly disagree with several things that society as a whole finds acceptable. Overlap, also, is not uniformity. Overlap is easily explained by evolution. Basically, you're agreeing with what I say about morality, and then calling it something else. To what end, I don't know.
If morality is not what individuals feel, then I don't know what you think it is or how it can apply independent of a particular observer. Objectly measuring outcomes can be done. Objectively interpreting those outcomes, without any agreed criteria or viewpoint, cannot be done. I notice you are still leaving God out of all this. Would you care to bring him in? Or do you agree with me that he is irrelevant to morality, even if he exists?
Here are my videos for reference, if anyone wants to give feedback. I enjoy doing them and I'd like to improve! I won't be offended by constructive criticism. You can read along to what I'm responding to from RR on pages 14 onwards of this thread.
Where I think you are confused, is that I agree, that judgements are subjective. So are your beliefs and thoughts. They are dependent on your experience, knowledge, worldview and other things pertaining to you the subject. It may be a judgement call, on whether that color is blue or purple. It doesn’t mean that what I have thoughts on is subjective (everything would be subjective if that is the case.) The color in question, doesn’t change; based on by beliefs or judgement. Similarly, just because there may be a question, or differences in opinion about something, it does not mean that it is subjective. I cannot make what is objective; to be subjective, simply by disagreeing. If that is the case then it was never objective to begin with, as it was dependent on my agreement. You are confusing knowledge of, with the nature of.
And I do believe that most everyone that I have encountered, does behave as if morality is objective. They do behave as if right and wrong, justice, good and evil are real things to be compared and evaluated. They don’t behave as if what is clearly immoral, is just another valid choice. Without objective morality you have none of these things. They feel that they can critique the morality of others, and accuse others of doing wrong. They place blame and accept praise as if there is a moral standard which exists. Without an objective morality you cannot claim that anything is unfair or unjust. You also can not become more or less moral. You can change your moral ethics, but this is just different not more moral or immoral; because there is no basis outside of yourself. Especially when wrong is done against them, I find that most will demand justice. And when they are doing wrong, they will try to justify it.
Frankly; I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone about morality; who thinks that there is nothing really wrong with abusing his wife.
March 8, 2016 at 5:54 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 5:57 am by robvalue.)
Well, you're misrepresenting me entirely.
I do think there is something very wrong with a man beating his wife. But I own that as my judgement. It's not objectively wrong because that is incoherent, as I've explained at length.
"Not objectively wrong" does not mean "Right", or even "OK". It's a language problem. You're mixing terms that don't go together. I object to the formulation.
Your analogy is flawed about the colour, because you're talking of opinions about a fact. The colour is a fact. What would be more apt is how people feel about the colour. Does it make them happy, or sad? Is it out of place, or fitting? There are no facts here, these are judgements.
"Most people seem to behave..." is an incredibly long way from "objective".
I don't think this going anywhere further so I'll sign off.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(January 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".
If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?
Thanks
I would decide for myself how to act...and I'd probably be miserable.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, you're misrepresenting me entirely.
I don't believe so; I worded my response carefully. Unless I have misunderstood this whole time, and you agree with me.
Quote:I do think there is something very wrong with a man beating his wife. But I own that as my judgement. It's not objectively wrong because that is incoherent, as I've explained at length.
I expected this response. And it is a part of why I do believe that there is an innate sense of morality outside of ourselves. It is not just that most people agree, about what is moral. Most people agree that bacon tastes good, but that does not make it objective. In discussion, people are willing to say that there is no real right or wrong. But when you get to specifics, about someone abusing ones wife, the story changes, and they do think there is something very wrong with it. Do you think that this applies outside of yourself? Are you pro choice, when it comes to abusing someone's wife?
Quote:"Not objectively wrong" does not mean "Right", or even "OK". It's a language problem. You're mixing terms that don't go together. I object to the formulation.
Please explain. My understanding is that you disagree to the "objective" part. And that you are saying, that it could be right or OK, relative to the subject (it may also be wrong depending on the person). That the subject is the basis for determining if it is right or wrong, not a quality of the external action. You are not saying that it is right or wrong outside of yourself.
Quote:Your analogy is flawed about the colour, because you're talking of opinions about a fact. The colour is a fact. What would be more apt is how people feel about the colour. Does it make them happy, or sad? Is it out of place, or fitting? There are no facts here, these are judgements.
Sorry, but I don't feel that morals such as abusing your wife can be compared to your tastes in ice cream or how a color makes you feel. I believe that there is something very wrong with it though.
The question that everyone needs to ask themselves in this discussion, is what is the basis for moral classifications. Is it based on a quality of what is being referred to? Or is it based on and relative to the person in question? If it is based in the subject, then I think that the question needs to be answered, what is it in the subject, is the foundation for that classification. My favorite food is based on my tastes. How a color makes me feel, is based in my emotions. It would be incorrect to assert my tastes or emotions on to someone else. Our thoughts on a subject are necessarily subjective (even if the focus of that subject is objective). For me, it appears that in these discussions, it is just assumed that morality is subjective, with no reason why. The only reasons I have heard for it being subjective are it there are disagreements (although in the basic sense morals are fairly the same). And because we cannot determine precisely what is moral. From this, I could argue that evolution is subjective, and thus no longer science (as with a number of other things).
