RE: Subjective Morality?
October 15, 2018 at 11:09 pm
(This post was last modified: October 15, 2018 at 11:38 pm by mfigurski80.
Edit Reason: changes in opponent argument
)
(October 15, 2018 at 10:45 pm)wyzas Wrote:(October 15, 2018 at 10:36 pm)mfigurski80 Wrote: You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.
Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective.
Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.
Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.
We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination.
Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as irrelavent as your
Oh. The article. Very well:
"The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. " (https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)
Honestly, I just google 'objectivism philosophical definition', and this one had the cleanest description, but I'm glad it did turn out to be apologetic; it seems to demonstrate prejudice that you seem to have against theist thought. As an atheist, I would image you believe any rationality is a step in the right direction, although I understand you may have reservations against using pieces of apologetic thought in a secular conversation.
I hope you realize how much you depend on ideas religious people had though... even if delusional about some things, theists can still bring about productive science. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists
In my opinion, truth is truth no matter who utters it. But maybe thats just my objectivism talking.
EDIT:
"Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective"
No it doesn't. Given both/either of the philosophical definitions I have provided, an objective morality would be absolutely plausible should there be different opinions about it.
Objective morality (hypothetically, if it exist) has definite correct and incorrect positions, just like science. By definition, that's what the 'objective' in front of 'morality' is for.
"OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals."
... After you give me a precise and narrowly defined matrix of the position of every single subatomic particle in your body.
Likewise, objective moral definitions are extremely hard to provide and extremely easy to find minute errors in... this doesn't mean they don't exist.
Re killing: you're mistaken. To paraphrase: killing is okay in certain situations, not okay in others.
Again, since objective morality works like objective science, this would be akin to saying that: some functions have a limit at x=0, others don't. Nothing subjective about it. Very specific though.
Just to reiterate: differing interpretations do not prove subjectivity. Complicated and situationally specific results do not prove subjectivity.
Like, please stop trying to demonstrate either of these, it's logically impossible