In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[John 6IX Breezy]

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that, to me, the boundaries between objective and subjective are blurred to begin with. However, even if we set up discreet and absolute boundaries, it also seems to me that both have an intimate relationship with one another. That is to say, that the contents of each often references or overlaps with the contents of the other.

In terms of overlap you have things such as sounds, in which the subjective experience of loudness corresponds to the objective observation of amplitude.

In terms of reference, you have subjective opinions such as personal views on abortion, which clearly reference the external acts of abortion.

When I see individuals in this thread saying morality is subjective and others objective, it makes me wonder if both are saying that morality is exclusively subjective or exclusively objective without any referent or overlap into the other category.

Thoughts?

[Acrobat]

When I see individuals in this thread saying morality is subjective and others objective, it makes me wonder if both are saying that morality is exclusively subjective or exclusively objective without any referent or overlap into the other category.

Thoughts?

It depends on the type of overlap you're referring to.

Those like myself who subscribe to a view of Good as property of some non-natural reality, like Platos Form for the Good, mean this exists exclusively objective, like the Sun, or the table in my room.

But like that nature of all such truths, we perceive it subjectively, like my perception of the sun is subjective, meaning I perceive it through my head, and discerns it's independence (objective existence) through my mind.

Others seem to smuggle the objectiveness of good and bad, into the objectiveness of the scientific and historic facts surrounding x. A position I find false. I acknowledge the objectiveness of good and bad, but we won't find in the scientific and historic facts about x .

[The Grand Nudger]

The sun and the table exist in the way of natural objects. Circles exist in the way of non natural objects.

Here again you make it clear that you are referencing the supernatural. Not the non natural.

This is a massive fuckup, what with the one literally called non-the other.

[DLJ]

...
When I see individuals in this thread saying morality is subjective and others objective, it makes me wonder if both are saying that morality is exclusively subjective or exclusively objective without any referent or overlap into the other category.

Thoughts?

I wonder that too.

But more than that, I can't fathom why either term has any relevance in the context of morality. It just seems so 18th century.

[LastPoet]

...
When I see individuals in this thread saying morality is subjective and others objective, it makes me wonder if both are saying that morality is exclusively subjective or exclusively objective without any referent or overlap into the other category.

Thoughts?

I wonder that too.

But more than that, I can't fathom why either term has any relevance in the context of morality. It just seems so 18th century.

We could be using those ridiculous hats.