RE: The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God
May 2, 2018 at 9:18 am
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2018 at 9:40 am by henryp.)
(May 2, 2018 at 8:46 am)Hammy Wrote: @henryp... I am not going to reply to that until you actually respond to me using the quote feature correctly. Quoting my entire response and inserting your own comments inside my quoteboxes in bold is not how to use the quote feature. I am not interested in clearing up your mess when I already said I think that you and Khem are only worth minimum effort as neither of you seem to be able to grasp the most basic of points and both have you have repeatedly ignored the exact same question before... one about the distinction between noumena and phenomena, which leads me to believe that you're both too dishonest to ask about something you don't understand... or even tell me why you don't think it's relevant. You just ignore it altogether... which is pathetic (I guess if you said you don't think it's relevant then you wouldn't be able to explain why if you don't even understand it).
That's fine. Khem and I are pretty much the only people who even attempt to respond to your daffy bullshit. And Khem is mostly just fucking with you. Good luck in all your future endeavors!
(May 2, 2018 at 8:56 am)robvalue Wrote:(May 2, 2018 at 8:38 am)henryp Wrote: Yeah, it's weird thinking of a 'law' with no effect. Although maybe, there is an effect. I think tossing God aside, we think 'immoral' behavior has personal consequences. And I don't mean physical. Changes to who you are on a more basic level. I'd use people who fight in wars who are haunted for the rest of their lives over some of the things that happen. This is the first time I've put those ideas together in this context, so I'm just going to go wander off and think about it now.
Sure, we become shaped by our past actions and experiences. We don't necessary have to even do anything ourselves to become traumatized though, just seeing it can be enough; so calling that morality would be a stretch.
We have a conscience, which provides negative consequences to us if we run contrary to it. That's really part of evolution, it's a practical trait that got selected and reinforced. The study of this is where the idea of "morality" came from in the first place. It's certainly no kind of universal law, as obviously our consciences tell us different things to each other, and some people don't have one at all (psycopaths etc). That kind of makes psycopaths "immune" to the law of morality.
This is kind of what I'm saying about "objective morality" being so nonsensical, since the feedback loop from the conscience is entirely individual. Ultimately that's what morality is about, even though we can rationalize it in other ways.
I think I don't like the term objective. It's has too many applications. Like I'm objectively X inches tall. But humans don't have an objective (universal) height. Even though everyone has an objective height. That lack of clarity in definition always makes objective/subjective discussions wonky.
Like everyone has a height. Height is the measurement of ground to top of the head. Those ideas are universal. The value of the height changes from person to person and over time. So is height objective or subjective? If morality were defined as some universal physical response of various brain processes to various actions, and we were able to apply that measurement to every person, is that objective or subjective?
