(February 2, 2016 at 10:55 am)robvalue Wrote:
First, my apologies for the delay. I've been sick for weeks, and haven't gotten online much. Also, to note, I find that videos, unless really well done to be horrid. (I suppose for some that may make them immoral). The jitteriness, reading responses, it all takes away from what you have to say. It also takes 20 minutes, to go through what would take a couple in text, and it is more difficult to respond to a video. But poor format, doesn't effect the arguments.
From what I can tell, you have offered just about all the arguments against an objective morality, and I don't think that you have attempted to tie them together in a coherent fashion. It really seems as if it is just anything but objective reality. Some of these may even qualify as objective, just an alternative to a transcendent cause. I have seen moral nihilism presented, and argument from biology, subjectivism, and social consensus. It would seem that you need to pick one of these, or tie them together in some kind of sensible fashion as to what your basis for morality is.
Secondly; I have seen two main arguments from you. That there is disagreement on morality, and that we are unable to test or measure morality in a way similar to mass, to come to a consistent conclusion. However both of these depend on knowledge, and has no foundation in whether morality is subjective or objective (based within the subject, or external and applying the same to all.) I have already covered how physical tests comparison is a category mistake. It would be as improper as demanding a physics test to see if something is objective or not. You are not free to make up your own logic, and the question is if morality is similar. (Logic is another transcendental which provides difficulty to account for from a materialistic perspective). So, on to disagreement, or dis-similar opinions on what qualifies as moral. Disagreement does not equate to subjectivism. It can mean that the answer is not entirely clear, or that people do not want to accept it as reality, or that there is simply a lack of knowledge. There are disagreements in evolution studies, it does not mean that the answer is subjective, and contradicting ideas, are both correct.
I would also point out here, that subjectivism in regards to say reporting is slightly different than what I am talking about. In this case, when we speak of someone being objective, we are saying, that they are only giving the facts, without personal opinion. That they are not giving an interpretation. In this manner, most of common descent evolution is subjective. Just the objective facts, don't necessarily give you evolution. And that is fine. But it does not mean that there isn't an objective answer to if this type of evolution occurred to be discovered and verified as either true or false.
You also pointed to morality being a judgement call. I don't disagree. And this doesn't make it subjective. In fact, I would say that judgment makes it objective. There isn't a judgement if it is based on yourself, and may be completely different for someone else. I do believe that we are judging if an act has the qualities which are equal to being moral (or right or how one ought to behave). It's not based on my preferences. There are times, where what I desire, may be immoral. The fact, that you may struggle with morality means that your preferences are not the basis. It's not based on pragmatism or well being (both would be objective by the way). Stealing from my employer who has a lot of money, provides greater well being for me, and especially if he is unaware, barely effects him. Yet this is immoral. Similarly the person who attempts to trip me and fails is considered immoral, yet the person who does trip me by accident is not (this goes against pragmatism). And even basing it on an evolutionary disposition is difficult, as self sacrifice is normally considered a moral characteristic. Yet it provides greater survive-ability to the one who is receiving or is greedy.
I don't see where your or my judgement on morality is based on something particular to ourselves. And we act as if it is not. We act as if there is an objective reality, to which we ought to uphold. Even in this thread, I have seen you doing this. So are your actions, and your beliefs incoherent? Even if we disagree on particulars in some circumstances, why does our sense of morality agree in most circumstances. Do you think that throwing babies into a wood chipper for the pleasure of it, can ever be moral for anyone based on the subject?
