Which Comes First?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]
First, consider what I said above, about how some people may not notice entrapping language—including you, in forming your question.

I'll try to keep this in mind. Thanks for your consideration.

Second, nobody suggested you can't ask whatever questions you fancy. That was a bit of an overreaction, Evie.

Well I thought that you were implying that it's best I didn't ask some questions, but now I think - due to what you have said to me above - that it is perhaps best if I am perhaps a bit more careful in my forming them.

But if you want to ask Solarwave questions about his beliefs, make sure your questions involve beliefs that Solarwave himself asserts—not beliefs someone else asserted (e.g., other Christians you've talked to), so that whatever argument the questioning leads to, for your sake, doesn't engage in faulty reasoning.

I'll bear that in mind.

I can warn about potential fallacies, or I can wait until you commit them and make a spectacle of it. Since I like you, I chose the former. And since Solarwave is my brother in Christ, I chose to help him.

Why thank you, and it's nice that you like me. I like you too: A theist with admirable qualities and I think an admirable theist on the whole too

Well, I said that your position asserts "that normative ethics do not even exist." But if we want to deal frankly with each other, then yes, your view assert
s that ethics don't exist at all.

But I believe ethics are a cultural thing and morals are more of an evolved thing. you see...

There is no such thing as right or wrong; there are only various biochemical states of certain mammals or populations thereof.

Well that's sort of what I mean, but it seems as though you are perhaps trying to demean it - or think it is already demeaned, rather - by phrasing it that way.

In other words as you say the differing biochemical states, I am talking about how each individual has what he believes to be wrong, and that on the whole there is a general cultural consensus on the matter, a very vague one mind, because we are all individuals.

This fact, the fact that each individual has what he/she believes to be wrong, is obvious: What about your belief that morals are objective though? I know of no evidence for that you see... it seems to me that the burden of proof is therefore on you, and not me. What I am saying is beyond obvious and exists whether there's an objective morality or not. Because even if there are objective morals, there's still the fact that we each have our own views on the matter, which is what i mean by subjective morality: The fact we all have our own personal beliefs and feelings on the matter, of what is right and wrong: What is moral and immoral.

No, there is no such thing as subjective morality. Under the view you propose, morality actually doesn't exist at all; e.g., "Rape is wrong" is a meaningless statement because it ascribes an objective moral predicate to the subject of rape—which is impossible to do, for there are no objective moral predicates.

What do you mean by "no such thing as subjective morality"? All I mean is the fact that we all have views on morals, and if that doesn't count as morality at all, not even subjective morality, then that's just your own personal and, subjective, views on morality speaking... until there's evidence of objective morality then you telling me that doesn't count does nothing... because that's only in your own subjective view. How can you say that doesn't count? Subjective morality is just the fact that views differ, it is the reverse to objective morality which is that objective morals actually exist in reality somehow, or as clear values that just are moral or immoral. And without evidence for this, without evidence for objective morality, how are they not a subjective matter? Subjective morality just means the fact that us, the subjects, have different views on the matter.

The issue is not about what is known or understood, but about what is true. You persistently draw ontological conclusions from epistemological arguments, which is a brutal category fallacy. You need to stop doing that (if you want to be rational).

As I said, I'm not doing that. I am not claiming that my claims are absolute. When I say "X is true", you can take that as a belief or an absolutist statement, and when I'm coming back telling you I'm not being absolutist, why do you persist in saying that i am and saying that I fallacious. Of course it's a fallacy to draw ontological conclusions from epistemological ones. That I believe there is evidence for something and that is rational, and that I believe it, does not imply that it is absolutely true/ is actually existent in reality.

When I say "X is true", you can take that to mean "I know X is true" or "I believe/think X is true". My assertions and claims are statements of beliefs... regardless of whether I believe they have evidence backing them or not, I am not explicitly asserting that they are absolutist and that I know it.

Since zero of my claims are absolutist, I'd have to constantly state "I think" and "I believe" throughout repeated lines throughout my posts. I don't think it should automatically be assumed that the statement "X is true" = "I know X is true", it can also just as easily mean "I believe X is true", and for me it always means the latter. I am well aware that the former is irrational.

Whether or not P is true (ontology) is separate from whether or not you have any knowledge of P (epistemology).

Of course.

The earth revolved around the sun even though the Australopithecus afarensis had no knowledge of that, right?

Right.

Epistemological arguments do not service ontological conclusions.

I know that (translation: "I believe I almost certainly know that, so please don't ask me to back up this absolutist claim for it is not absolutist").

Why are you reversing the burden of proof?

[...] competing views about X do not prove that X has no objective reality—which left your truth claim standing naked.

My "claim" is merely my belief that people, of course, have different views on the matter of morality. What some people believe to be "moral", or "immoral" differs. Yes, this does not prove that objective morality doesn't exist. I was not suggesting that it did. I don' t need to prove that objective morality doesn't exist, to attempt to do so anyway would commit the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove a negative. All I need to do is point out that I don't know of any evidence for objective morality, so without that, in my view, I'm just left with the fact that there's at least "probably" only the fact that everyone has different subjective views on the matter... which is all I mean by "subjective morality".

I like how you injected the word "absolutely" throughout your reply. At any rate, calling it an assumption does not make it so. And it was not an assumption made but a conclusion drawn, from such statements of yours as, "Morality does not exist objectively," a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that objective morality might exist.

So, when you, say right here, that it is "a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that morality might exist". Should I believe that you are claiming to know that or that you merely are claiming to believe it due to your own reasoning? Because if I am to assume the former like you do of me, then I am to now ask how you know that this is necessarily a case. And I am also to point out that your claim is illogical because someone could make a statement, when that statement was just a Belief supported by what they believed to be their own reasoning and evidence, and not an absolutist statement.

As were my claims, they were not absolutist ones. I just didn't say "I believe X" or "I think X", and since you haven't done the same now, am I to draw the conclusion, by that same logic, that you wouldn't make the statement that I 'wouldn't make the statement if there was a possibly to concede' and accept that I might be wrong, if there was any possibility that you would concede and accept that you might be wrong in your statement?

I have only your statements as written, Evie. If you were being sloppy, how am I to know?

(Do you mean know as in absolutely know or relatively know?)

Common sense I say. I am not at all saying you don't have it, I'm just saying that when I claim "X is true" or "X is false", that doesn't imply that I am claiming to absolutely know those claims, they could just as easily be statements of belief due to my own reasoning.

If you are ever to state something, am I to assume that you are being absolutist and say "Oh, but how do you know that?"? That is not an assumption? I think it is. A statement can be absolutist or not absolutist.

If I have to assert specifically that "I believe X is true"/"I think X is true" all the time. It makes those words kind of redundant, for everything I am saying I am stating as a belief anyway.

I also then tend to run into statements by others saying "We know it's your belief/opinion, you don't have to keep asserting that it is all the time", see what I mean? Can't please everyone. Some people assume that "X is true" is a mere belief/opinion, others assume that it is an absolutist claim, others make no assumptions.

It is not an assumption! Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Evie!

Do you "Believe" that I am being disingenuous or, since you didn't mention that you believe it, are you making an absolutist statement, should I assume that then, by your above logic?

And if so, how do you "know" that I'm 'being disingenuous'.

I'm not being disingenuous.

That sort of sophistry fails badly the test of rationality[...]

I could say this absolutist statement that you are making is irrational. Because you can't know what's in my mind and know that I am being disingenuous or not, you're not a mind reader.

Wait, you didn't claim that you absolutely "knew" that I was being disingenuous did you? No, but you didn't say you "Believed"/"Thought" I was either, or that it was your "opinion", so since it was just a statement, then by your logic above, as I said, am I to reason that it's an absolutist statement?

Or should I do the fair thing and not make assumptions? I don't assume that you are being absolutist, nor do I assume that it's merely your "belief", I can instead - if I felt like it anyway - question you on the matter without making an assumption either way.

[...] (which may be why it gets repped by certain atheists).

You claimed, "Morality is subjective." A very clear statement. You claimed, "Good and evil don't actually exist in reality." You claimed, "Good and evil don't actually objectively exist." You claimed, "The concept of what is good and evil is man-made." These were very clear.

These claims are my own beliefs of course. They weren't absolutist statements. I'm guessing it's just like how your statement up above how you said

"Morality does not exist objectively," a statement that would not come from a person who concedes that objective morality might exist.

(my emphasis) Since you didn't claim that as a belief or opinion, should I assume that you are being absolutist about that too? And also, should I assume the same about your accusation that I'm 'being bloody disingenuous'?

You claimed, "Morality does not exist objectively." That seemed pretty fucking clear.

Clear that I claimed it, but not clear that I was absolutist about it. I am not claiming to know what I claim. I am arguing evidentially. I am not making absolutist arguments.

Like I said "X is true" can mean "I know X is true", but it can also mean "I believe X is true"/"

Nothing ambiguous about your claims, Evie.

See above. That's your assumption that "X is true"= "I know X is true". And I could make the same assumption about you, but I don't.

I did not make any assumptions. It was my conclusion that you claim "morality does not exist objectively" because you bloody well said so!

I said so because that's an expression of what I believe. It is not an absolutist claim and hence I am not drawing logically fallacious ontological conclusions from epistemological ones.

Your claims are shouldering the burden of proof.

You believe that objective morality exists and I know no evidence for that. So I could say the same to you. Hopefully it is clear now that my position does not require the burden of proof until you have provided evidence for your view, because I am not claiming to know that objective morality doesn't exist. It is merely that my assertion that it doesn't exist is an expression of my belief that it doesn't, or rather my lack of belief that it does. IOW: I know of no evidence for objective morals whatsoever, so I of course don't believe in them. I consider them to be ridiculously unrealistic.

If you dislike this, recant them. But don't think for a moment that you can make claims like that to Solarwave and myself, hoping no one notices, and then weasel your way out of them if someone does notice. It's pure sophistry and bad form.

Are you claiming to absolutely know that it's 'pure sophistry and bad form' on my part if I clarify that my statements weren't absolutist ones? Am I to assume that you are absolutely claiming that - since you didn't state that it was your belief? And so does this mean that it is also 'pure sophistry and bad form' if you "weasel your way out" of this absolutist claim of yours(!!), this absolutist accusation(!), by clarifying afterwards that it is a belief of yours and not an absolutist claim?

Apparently the Bible is evidence of objective morality. Oh dear, I guess you're not going to quote the magic page or pages that proves it (or at least evidences it) then?

Under your view? False. Rape is simply a form of sexual reproduction that produces a certain biochemical state in some mammals. Forms of sexual reproduction are neither right nor wrong, because biochemical states are neither right nor wrong. Ergo, rape is not wrong.

Once again, I'm not being absolutist. I'm saying that it is "wrong" relative to whoever believes it is wrong. We each have our own subjective views on morality, however much they are shared, and however much they differ. That's all I mean by subjective morality.

Under the Christian view? Also false. Rape is wrong because it violates God's prescriptive will.

And that applies to those who believe that that is objective, not those who don't. So until it is proven that that is objective, the fact that Christians believe that is, I think, more likely to just be their own subjective views, than for objective morality to actually exist without any evidence for it.

Under your view, rape is not wrong. Under my view, it is. Which view makes sense of the statement "rape is wrong"?

If by under my view you mean rape is not objectively wrong, then yes. But I do believe rape is wrong in the sense that I would rather it didn't ever happen. And I think it is a horrible thing to do to someone.

I could not care less about changing your view. I'm interested in exploring what a God-forsaken unintelligible mess it is, which you are entirely free to hold onto.

I will hold onto it so long as I believe that the evidence is on my side.

P.S: When you say that my view is a "God-forsaken unintelligible mess", is that an absolutist statement or an opinion?

That moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands.

What are the crux of his commands, in your view?

And if you'd rather answer elsewhere feel free to do so. I am interested in hearing more about what you precisely believe.

No you don't. You think it is simply a form of sexual reproduction that produces a certain biochemical state in some mammals. You have no empirical evidence for anything beyond that. For you to state that "rape is highly immoral" is a blatant prevarication.

When I say I think it is wrong, I mean that I think it would be better for people if there was no raping in the world.

EvF