RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
May 16, 2017 at 8:45 am
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2017 at 8:48 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(May 16, 2017 at 4:14 am)Whateverist Wrote: I wonder what exactly you feel adding "objectively" here adds to what you're saying...Is an assertion that something is humorous or beautiful likewise enhanced by adding that it is "objectively" so? Also, why is your standing up for a value you think is "objectively" correct supposed to have more value than my standing up for a subjective value I hold which I recognize not everyone may share? Something about this feels off to me. Do see what I mean?
One indicates an imperative. The other is a preference. Consider circumstances of ambiguity where the outcome of someone's decisions could go various ways. If there is an imperative then it is incumbent on the agent to determine, as best he can, the right course of action. If there is no imperative then the choice has no import and any outcome will do. The qualifier of objectivity adds real significance to action, facts that exists beyond one's own opinions.
(May 16, 2017 at 8:21 am)SteveII Wrote: My understanding is only reason to think we do not have free will is to presuppose naturalism. So it is not a belief the atheists necessarily wants to believe, it is one they are stuck with. Same with morality--most people actually believe there are objective moral truths, but the atheist can't admit that because it is a necessary conclusion of naturalism that there is not.
That's exactly right. The notion that the physical universe is causally closed is the unfalsifiable second-order principle.
