(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: Roadrunner: The fact that people tend to generally share the same sense of morality is a direct result of evolution and is easily explainable. There's no need to resort to any outside influence.
I would challenge you to show that morality is a result of evolution, I don't think that you can do so, easily or otherwise. Not just to tell a story of evolution magic, but to show that it is the cause. I admit, that we cannot test that morality is objective. However I would maintain that the majority of people have an innate sense that morality is objective and unchanging. The majority of philosophers believe in moral realism. And while some such as Sam Harris admit to objective morality, I find that most who talk of subjective morals, still behave as if morals are objective.
(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: Something being objective means you can somehow measure it using a certain method, and everyone would get the same results in any particular example, such as measuring mass or velocity. (Let's not cloud the issue with advanced science. Of course there will be user error to some degree as we're not infallible.) To say morality is objective, you need to give a method for measuring it. You also have to explain why that particular way of measuring it is meaningful or useful.
If this is true, then wouldn't logic/reason fall under the same restriction? You cannot test logic or reason using the scientific method. Science presupposes logic/reason. Do you think that there is an objective logic; or is it based on the subject, and someone else's logic which opposes your own is equally valid?
(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: You seem to be uncomfortable with consequences. If there is only subjective morality, then no one can objectively say they are more moral than anyone else. Correct. That doesn't stop it being true. Simply announcing that there must be a "correct" subjective morality and calling that objective morality is entirely arbitrary and pointless.
Yes to an extent, I think it is a correct assessment to say I'm uncomfortable with moral anti-realism. I don't think morality is just an opinion, but something real, something to discover, and something to aspire to. But more so; I don't think that you and others behave as if is subjective. Which should I believe.... what you say, or what you do?
(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: What we can do, and what we do do is to agree between us in a society on general goals for morality such as maximising life, health, happiness, opportunity, equality, freedom and so on while minimising death, harm, suffering, etc. Once we have agreed those things are important, a sensible framework can be built. It's then possible to compare one set of morals to another, to see which best serves the goals. What we consider important goals is something that evolves over time, as certain things seem more important and others less important.
You say that morality changes over time, and is a result of societal consensus. So then a moral framework which is the antithesis of what you posted here would be equally valid then correct (it would be equally moral)? You claimed that evolution is the source of morality (although un-supported). So wouldn't then wouldn't morality be what best advances the species?
(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: If morality is based on god's nature, it's still subjective to god's nature. It's not objective. We can study the evolution of a particular society's morality, or we can study individuals to see how their own ideas compare to the general consensus. Objective morality is akin to saying, "Look, this is all too complicated. People sort of agree, and I want there to be a best way to behave. Therefor there is a magic standard." Even if there was one, no two people can agree what it is so it would be utterly pointless. What use to anyone is millions of theists all announcing their own interpretation of objective morality? If we're simply going to discuss them and find out what we think is right, then we're dealing with subjective morality again.
In your first sentence here I think you are equivocating the term "subjective". I could equally say that the property of hardness is subject to an objects composition or any other number of physical laws, but it would be incorrect to say that it is not objective. I also think that you are confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral) with ontology (what makes it moral) which is what I am discussing.
(October 3, 2015 at 9:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: Plus, you really don't want morality based on god's nature if that God is Yahweh. I assume you've read the bible, the only apparent source we have. By today's civilised standards and goals, he is a psychopathic monster. To say otherwise is to discount the bible, at which point you're just completely making stuff up.
Well that is your subjective opinion, and I suspect is a result of prooftexting and lack of knowledge of scripture. However you are again not basing your judgement on the subjective standard which you propose.
