(November 20, 2018 at 8:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(November 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm)tackattack Wrote: So I've been told that I might have a misconception and I didn't want to put this in philosophy because it's on account of my faith as a Christian.
Here are my thoughts on morality
There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs
There is societal morality- what is commonly accepted to be right or wrong for a people within a particular society
There is universal morality (possibly)- things that rational people of any time and any place find right or wrong
There is objective morality- A being I call God exists outside the universe that influences us through the Holy Spirit to inform of objective morality.
Do I fall under the misconceptions you were referencing?
If it's in reference to the moral argument, then I think you are a little confused on some things. One it's about what it is for something to be moral; not how we know if it is moral or not. That is, what is the basis for calling anything at all right or wrong, rather than whether a particular thing is immoral or not. Second, objective vs subjective is just saying what is the foundation for something being called moral or immoral. With objective meaning that it is independent and apart from the individuals thoughts or feelings on the matter, and subjective being dependent on the person (and therefore also relative to the person. I think that all four of your definitions above, could apply at once.
It could be influenced by God, universally recognized in scope, which would make it commonly accepted within a given society. and therefore you would likely feel that it is wrong. With the meanings used in the moral argument, this would lead to a contradiction, if you where saying that it was both subjective, and objective at the same time, in the same way.
Another way to look at it, may be from a standpoint of what is true, and what is being described as true. If it's subjective, then what is true for one person, may not necessarily be true of another, or even most. And there is no issue, here, because they are telling us about something different (giving you information about the person). However something that is objective is true regardless of the person, their knowledge or opinions of it. It's not effected by the person speaking the truth, and any particular person may be more or less correct in their opinion of it. It's telling you about something external and not changed by opinion, preference, or feelings.
Now if you are talking about how we know what is moral, then that is going to be more subjective, because knowledge is subjective.
No, knowledge is not subjective. Easy way to test that is to jump off a skyscraper with nothing to aid you from falling. I wouldn't recommend that though.
Scientific method updates when new data comes in yes, but it isn't the naked assertion "knowledge" religions like to claim as absolute fact.
Religion is NOT subject to the same strict standards of scientific method. It gets passed down through marketing, not peer review through testing and falsification.
Morality is what a female alligator does to protect it's eggs. Morality is what a lioness does to protect it's cubs. Morality is what humans do in protecting their young. Mythology is what humans make up and buy and sell, and gets mostly sold to young long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.
You are trying to muddy the waters by claiming "knowledge" of a tradition, or a history of making a claim, as being the same as provable fact beyond personal bias.
